Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment

Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam Watersheds- 2017

FINAL

Howard County, Maryland

KCI Technologies, Inc. November 2017 - Final Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment Upper Brighton Dan, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam Watersheds – 2017

November 2017 - Final

NPDES Permit No. 00-DP-3318 MD0068322

Prepared for:

Department of Public Works Bureau of Environmental Services Stormwater Management Division NPDES Watershed Management Programs

Prepared by:

KCI Technologies, Inc. 936 Ridgebrook Road Sparks, Maryland 21152 KCI Job Order No. 16158563.28 CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ...... iii 1 Background and Objectives ...... 1 2 Methodologies ...... 4 2.1 Selection of Sampling Sites ...... 5 2.2 Impervious Surface and Land Use Analysis ...... 5 2.3 Water Quality Sampling ...... 5 2.4 Biological Sampling ...... 6 2.4.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling ...... 7 2.4.2 Sample Processing and Laboratory Identification ...... 7 2.4.3 Biological Data Analysis ...... 8 2.5 Physical Habitat Assessment ...... 9 2.6 Geomorphic Analysis ...... 10 2.6.1 Cross Section Analysis ...... 10 2.6.2 Particle Size Analysis ...... 11 2.6.3 Rosgen Classification ...... 11 3 Results...... 12 3.1 Subwatershed Summaries...... 12 3.1.1 Upper Brighton Dam ...... 12 3.1.2 Cattail Creek ...... 18 3.1.3 Lower Brighton Dam ...... 24 4 Discussion and Comparison...... 30 4.1 Discussion ...... 30 4.1.1 2017 Assessment Results ...... 30 4.1.2 Comparison of 2001, 2005, 2012, and 2017 Bioassessment data ...... 34 5 Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 39 5.1 Recommendations for Future Program Development ...... 39 6 References ...... 41

i FIGURES

Figure 1 - Howard County Bioassessment ...... 3 Figure 2 - Location Map of Cattail Creek, Upper Brighton Dam, and Lower Brighton Dam Watersheds ...... 4 Figure 3 – Cattail Creek, Upper Brighton Dam, and Lower Brighton Dam Bioassessment Sampling Locations ...... 7 Figure 4 – Upper Brighton Dam PSU Sampling Results ...... 15 Figure 5 – Cattail Creek PSU Sampling Results ...... 22 Figure 6 – Lower Brighton Dam PSU Sampling Results ...... 28 Figure 7 - Relationship between the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI) and impervious surface in PSUs sampled during 2017 Howard County Biological Monitoring ...... 31 Figure 8 - Relationship between the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI) and specific conductivity in PSUs sampled during 2017 Howard County Biological Monitoring ...... 32 Figure 9 - Relationship between the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI) and physical habitat in PSUs sampled during 2017 Howard County Biological Monitoring ...... 33 Figure 10 - Comparison of 2001, 2005, 2012, and 2017 BIBI scores...... 35 Figure 11 - Comparison of 2001, 2005, 2012 and 2017 RBP Physical Habitat Assessment scores...... 38

TABLES

Table 1 – Summary of Bioassessment Progress ...... 2 Table 2 - Water Quality Sampling and COMAR Standards, Use III-P and IV-P Waters...... 6 Table 3 – Biological Index Scoring for Piedmont Benthic Macroinvertebrates ...... 9 Table 4 – BIBI Scoring and Rating ...... 9 Table 5 – RBP Habitat Parameters - High Gradient Streams ...... 10 Table 6 – RBP Habitat Score and Ratings ...... 10 Table 7 – Rosgen Level II Channel Type Description ...... 12 Table 8 – Upper Brighton Summary ...... 17 Table 9 – Cattail Creek Summary ...... 23 Table 10 – Lower Brighton Summary ...... 29 Table 11 - Pearson Correlations ...... 34 Table 12 - Comparison of 2001, 2005, 2012, and 2017 BIBI Data ...... 34 Table 13. Tukey (HSD) / Analysis of the differences between years with a confidence interval of 95% ...... 36 Table 14 - Comparison of 2001, 2005, 2012, and 2017 RBP Physical Habitat Assessment Data...... 37

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Land Use and Imperviousness Appendix B: Water Quality Data Appendix C: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Appendix D: Habitat Assessment Data Appendix E: Geomorphologic Data Appendix F: Quality Assurance/Quality Control

ii Acknowledgements The principal authors for this report are Susanna Brellis and Colin Hill of KCI Technologies. Fieldwork was conducted primarily by Susanna Brellis, Katie Myers, and Laura Kelm of KCI and Shaun Evans of Straughan Environmental Services. Sample processing and taxonomic identification was conducted by Aquatic Resources Center (ARC). ARC’s lab manager is Todd Askegaard. Tom McKay of KCI provided additional support with GIS analysis. Shaun Evans assisted with report editing and review. Michael Pieper assisted with contract management oversight.

For more information on this report or Howard County’s Watershed Management efforts contact: Mark Richmond, Chief, Stormwater Management Division Stormwater Management Division Bureau of Environmental Services Howard County Department of Public Works 6751 Columbia Gateway Drive Columbia, Maryland 21046 410-313-6416

Or visit us on the web at https://www.howardcountymd.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Bureau-Of- Environmental-Services/Stormwater-Management/Watershed-Management/Watershed-Surveys

The appropriate citation for this report is:

S. K. Brellis and C. R. Hill. 2017. Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment, Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, Lower Brighton Dam Watersheds – 2017. Prepared by KCI Technologies, Inc., Sparks, MD for Howard County, Department of Public Works. Stormwater Management Division. Columbia, MD. December 2017.

iii Executive Summary The Howard County Department of Public Works Stormwater Management Division initiated the Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program in the spring of 2001. The County initiated the monitoring program to establish a baseline ecological stream condition for all of the County’s watersheds. The program involves monitoring the biological health and physical condition of the County’s water resources and is designed on a five year rotating basis such that each of the County’s 15 watersheds, or primary sampling units (PSU) will be sampled once every five years. Round 1 was completed from 2001 to 2003, Round 2 from 2005-2009, and Round 3 from 2012-2016, with 10 randomly selected sites sampled in each PSU. The current year of sampling (2017) is the first year of Round 4. To allow for paired site comparisons with previous Rounds, a total of four sites from Round One (2001), Round Two (2005), and Round Three (2012) were selected for resampling in each PSU. The remaining six sites in each PSU were randomly selected. The monitoring in each round involved sampling instream water quality, collection and analysis of the biological community (benthic macroinvertebrates) using Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) protocols, cross section analysis, particle size distribution, and assessment of the physical habitat using the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP). The sampling methods used are compatible with those used in the third round (2012-2016) with updates where applicable. All data collection occurred between March 1st and April 30th of 2017, as required by the MBSS protocols. Sampling sites were marked in the field using survey flagging at the upstream and downstream limits of the reach. The positions of the site midpoints were collected using a GPS unit accurate to within 1-meter. Biological and physical habitat assessment results for 2017 in Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam indicate watersheds that are minimally impaired. Only one out of thirty benthic macroinvertebrate samples received a rating of ‘Very Poor’ and four received a ‘Poor’ rating. The remaining sites (83%) were rated as either ‘Good’ or ‘Fair’. Overall, the average watershed physical habitat conditions were ‘Partially Supporting’ (Upper Brighton Dam and Cattail Creek) and ‘Non-supporting’ (Lower Brighton Dam). The geomorphic assessment reveals a variable system. Using the Rosgen classification system for natural rivers (Rosgen, 1996), more than half (53%) of the channels sampled throughout the subwatersheds were classified as incised F or G channels and the remaining 47% were classified as stable type B or C channels. Gravel, sand, and silt/clay were the dominant substrate types in the majority of sampling reaches. The average percentage of impervious area in the Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam subwatersheds is 3.6%, 6.9%, and 6.3%, respectively. Imperviousness for the areas draining to each sampling site range from 2.0% in Upper Brighton Dam to 8.3% in Lower Brighton Dam (see Appendix A for impervious values). Pearson correlations between the BIBI scores and all parameters (percent imperviousness, specific conductivity, PHI habitat, and RBP habitat) showed significant relationships. The percentage of imperviousness to each sampling site indicates a negative relationship (correlation coeff.= -0.428, p 0.018) to BIBI scores, suggesting biological condition decreases with increased watershed imperviousness. Specific conductivity and BIBI scores also showed a strong negative correlation (correlation coeff.= -0.613, p = 0.0003). These results support the notion that overall water quality and biological health are likely being affected by the amount of development, and hence imperviousness, in the watershed. A strong correlation was also observed between impervious percent and specific conductivity (correlation coeff.= 0.702, p <0.0001), suggesting that increased conductivity is due in large part to urban runoff.

iv Results of the 2017 assessment indicate minimally impaired biological conditions in all three watersheds, and no statistical significant changes in mean BIBI scores were observed in any of the subwatersheds over time. Average habitat assessment scores were found to be significantly higher in 2012 when compared to all other years. This may be a result of the subjectivity of habitat assessment scoring and the fact that different teams conducted the assessments each year.

v 1 Background and Objectives The Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program was initiated in the spring of 2001 by the Howard County Department of Public Works Stormwater Management Division. The program involves monitoring the biological health and physical condition of the County’s water resources to detect the status and trends at the stream level, the watershed level and ultimately at the County level. The County initiated the program to establish a baseline ecological stream condition for all of the County’s watersheds. The program is designed on a five year rotating basis such that each of the County’s 15 watersheds or primary sampling units (PSU) will be sampled once every five years. In general, three PSUs would be sampled each year with 10 sites sampled in each PSU. Table 1 includes the full list of PSUs sampled per year and per round. Figure 1 illustrates the program progress to date. The first sampling rotation was completed in only three years (2001 to 2003). Requirements of the Patuxent Reservoir Watershed Group were addressed in 2001 with sampling conducted in PSUs 2, 5 and 3. This was in addition to sampling conducted in the Little Patuxent subwatersheds (PSUs 11, 12, and 13) under a Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) grant. In 2002, only the Middle Patuxent sites (PSUs 6, 7 and 8) were sampled. Additional WRAS funding in 2003 allowed sampling to be completed in the Patapsco River Tributaries (PSUs 1, 4, and 10) in addition to Rocky Gorge, Hammond Branch, and Dorsey Run, which were sampled to supplement the data collected in 2001 for the Little Patuxent. Upper and Lower Brighton Dam (PSUs 2 and 5, respectively) and Cattail Creek (PSU 3) were all sampled as part of the first year of the second round of sampling in 2005. The Little Patuxent River subwatersheds (PSUs 11, 12, and 13) were sampled in 2006 during year two of the second round of sampling. The Middle Patuxent subwatersheds (PSUs 6, 7, and 8) and the Patapsco River subwatersheds (PSUs 1, 4, and10) were re-sampled in 2007 and 2008, respectively. In 2009, 30 newly selected sites were sampled in the Rocky Gorge Dam (PSU 9), Hammond Branch (PSU 14), and Dorsey Run (PSU 15) subwatersheds to fulfill the 2009 sampling requirements. Round 3 (2012 to 2016) of county-wide sampling began with sampling at Upper Brighton Dam (PSU 2), Lower Brighton Dam (PSU 5), and Cattail Creek (PSU 3) during 2012 and with the Little Patuxent River watersheds in 2013 (PSUs 11, 12, and 13). During 2014, Round 3 sampling continued with the sampling of the Middle Patuxent River subwatersheds (PSUs 6, 7, and 8). In 2015, the South Branch Patapsco, Patapsco River Lower Branch A, and Patapsco River Lower Branch B subwatersheds were sampled (PSUs 10, 1, and 4). In 2016, sampling continued in the same order as in Round 2, with Rocky Gorge Dam, Hammond Branch and Dorsey Run. Round 4 began in 2017 with sampling in Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam (PSUs 2, 3, and 5) watersheds. Round 4 sampling includes a combination of repeat site samples and new random site samples to improve trend detection. Assessment methods follow those developed by Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) and the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) found in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program (Howard County, 2001). The sampling methods used in 2017 are compatible with those used in Round 1 and Round 2, with updates where applicable.

1 Table 1 – Summary of Bioassessment Progress Year Number of Sites Primary Sampling Unit (code and name) Round One 2001 11 – Upper Little Patuxent 60 12 – Middle Little Patuxent 13 – Lower Little Patuxent 2 – Upper Brighton Dam 5 – Lower Brighton Dam 3 – Cattail Creek 2002 6 – Upper Middle Patuxent 30 7 – Middle Middle Patuxent 8 – Lower Middle Patuxent 2003 9 – Rocky Gorge Dam 60 14 – Hammond Branch 15 – Dorsey Run 10 – S Branch Patapsco River Tributaries 1 – Patapsco River L Branch A 4 – Patapsco River L Branch B Round Two 2005 2 – Upper Brighton Dam 30 5 – Lower Brighton Dam 3 – Cattail Creek 11 – Upper Little Patuxent 2006 30 12 – Middle Little Patuxent 13 – Lower Little Patuxent 6 – Upper Middle Patuxent 2007 30 7 – Middle Middle Patuxent 8 – Lower Middle Patuxent 10 – S Branch Patapsco River Tributaries 2008 30 1 – Patapsco River L Branch A 4 – Patapsco River L Branch B 9 – Rocky Gorge Dam 2009 30 14 – Hammond Branch 15 – Dorsey Run Round Three 2012 2 – Upper Brighton Dam 30 5 – Lower Brighton Dam 3 – Cattail Creek 11 – Upper Little Patuxent 2013 30 12 – Middle Little Patuxent 13 – Lower Little Patuxent 6 – Upper Middle Patuxent 2014 30 7 – Middle Middle Patuxent 8 – Lower Middle Patuxent 10 – S Branch Patapsco River Tributaries 2015 30 1 – Patapsco River L Branch A 4 – Patapsco River L Branch B 9 – Rocky Gorge Dam 2016 30 14 – Hammond Branch 15 – Dorsey Run Round Four 2 – Upper Brighton Dam 2017 30 5 – Lower Brighton Dam 3 – Cattail Creek

2 Figure 1 - Howard County Bioassessment

All three subwatersheds sampled in 2017 are located in the northwestern portion of the county and are crossed by several major transportation routes (Figure 2). Interstate I-70 crosses the northern end of Cattail Creek. Woodbine Road (Route 94) bisects Upper Brighton Dam and crosses the northern portion of Cattail Creek. Finally, Route 97 crosses through both Cattail Creek and Lower Brighton Dam. The Cattail Creek, Upper Brighton Dam, and Lower Brighton Dam subwatersheds are all located in the piedmont region of Maryland, although Upper Brighton Dam is located very close to the boundary between the Highlands and Piedmont regions. MBSS has developed strata for sampling and analysis of Maryland’s streams based on broad physiographic regions, which include the coastal plain, piedmont and combined highlands regions. MBSS’s physiographic region strata layer showed that all subwatersheds sampled in 2017 fell within the piedmont physiogeographic region (Figure 2).

3 Figure 2 - Location Map of Cattail Creek, Upper Brighton Dam, and Lower Brighton Dam Watersheds

2 Methodologies Stream monitoring was conducted throughout the watershed and involved measuring instream water quality, sampling and assessing the biological community (benthic macroinvertebrates), visually assessing the instream and riparian physical habitat, and performing cross sectional and substrate particle size measurement and analysis. Monitoring was conducted at 10 sites within each of the three PSUs (Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam). The assessment methods followed the current MBSS protocols (DNR, 2017) and the SOPs described in the County’s QAPP (DPW, 2001). All data collection occurred between March 21 and April 14, 2017, within the Spring Index Period (March 1 to April 30) as required by the MBSS sampling protocols. Monitoring sites were marked in the field using tree tags (when possible) or survey flagging at the upstream and downstream limits of the reach. The position of each site was collected at the midpoint using a GPS unit accurate to within 1 meter. All field data were entered into a laptop directly in the field. Photographs were taken to document conditions at the time of data collection. A summary of the methods used and the results of the monitoring are documented in this report.

4 2.1 Selection of Sampling Sites The sampling design employed both a repeat and randomized census approach stratified by stream order, with a total of 30 sites distributed among the three PSUs. Ten sites were located in each subwatershed. To select primary and alternate sampling sites, stream lengths were summed by stream order within each subwatershed. The length of stream by stream order and its percentage of the total length within the subwatershed determined the number of sites selected on that order stream. To allow for direct comparison of results between sampling rounds, a total of four sites from Round One (2001), Round Two (2005), and Round Three (2012) were selected for resampling in each PSU. The remaining six sites in each PSU were randomly selected. The randomized approach was then applied within each subwatershed. The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) stream layer was divided into 1-meter reaches and each reach was assigned a number. A random number generator was used to select sampling reaches for 2016. Both primary and alternate sites were selected in case the primary site was ephemeral (dry), inaccessible, or unsafe to sample. Site codes contain the PSU code (03), stream order (1), a two-digit sequential number (23), either an “R” or an “F” indicating that the site is a randomly selected site (i.e., R) or a fixed “revisit” site (i.e., F), the year sampled (2017) to create a unique site name (e.g., 03-123-F-2017). Three additional biological samples were collected as quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples at duplicate sites, one in each of the three subwatersheds. Biological sampling, habitat assessments and water quality measurements were repeated at the duplicate sites. These sites were selected in the field. Duplicate sampling reaches were the same length as the paired sampling sites (75 meters), were located immediately upstream of their paired sampling sites, had similar habitat characteristics and were not impacted by road crossings or confluences.

2.2 Impervious Surface and Land Use Analysis An analysis was conducted to derive the impervious surface acreage, percent impervious, and land use make up for each of the site drainage areas to evaluate their effect on biological condition. Drainage areas were first delineated to each sampling site using a combination of ArcGIS Hydro tools and two- foot contours. Land use was derived from Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) 2010 land use for Howard County. Since the Patuxent River is a large watershed draining several counties, additional GIS data from Montgomery County was also used to delineate drainage areas and calculate imperviousness based on land use. Impervious values were derived primarily using Howard County’s 2014 planimetric impervious surface layer which includes detailed polygons of roadways, rooftops, parking lots, sidewalks etc. A table with the percent of land use in each subwatershed and the calculated imperviousness is included in Appendix A. 2.3 Water Quality Sampling To supplement the macroinvertebrate sampling and habitat assessment, instream water quality measurements were performed. Field water quality measurements were collected in situ at all sites according to methods in the County QAPP. Each parameter listed in Table 2 was recorded at the upstream portion of each sampling reach (including field QC sites). Most in situ parameters were measured using a YSI® Professional Plus series multiprobe water quality meter. Turbidity was measured with a Hach® 2100 Turbidimeter. Water quality meters were regularly inspected, maintained, and calibrated to ensure proper usage and accuracy of the readings. Calibration logs were kept by field crew leaders and checked by the project manager regularly. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has established acceptable standards for several water quality parameters for each designated Stream Use Classification. These standards are listed in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.08.02.03-03 - Water Quality (MDE, 1994). The 5

Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam drainage areas are in COMAR Sub- Basin 02-13-11: Patuxent River Area. The Cattail Creek and Upper Bright Dam subwatersheds are classified as Use III-P, Nontidal Cold Water and Public Water Supply. The southern portion of the Lower Brighton Dam subwatershed is classified as Use IV-P, Recreational Trout Waters and Public Water Supply, while the northwestern portion upstream from Brighton Dam is classified as Use III-P, Nontidal Cold Water and Public Water Supply. The acceptable standards for Use III-P and IV-P streams are listed in Table 2. A comparison of these standards to data collected at each station is included in the site summary text in Section 3.1. Table 2 - Water Quality Sampling and COMAR Standards, Use III-P and IV-P Waters

Parameter Units Acceptable COMAR Standard pH standard pH units 6.5 to 8.5 Temperature degrees Celsius, C Use III-P: maximum of 68F (20C) or ambient temperature of the surface water, whichever is greater Use IV-P: maximum of 75F (23.9C) or ambient temperature of the surface water, whichever is greater Dissolved Oxygen milligrams per liter, mg/L may not be less than 5 mg/L at any time (DO) Conductivity microSiemans per no COMAR standard set centimeter, S/cm Turbidity Nephelometer Turbidity maximum of 150 NTUs and maximum monthly average of Units, NTU 50 NTUs

2.4 Biological Sampling Biological monitoring was conducted throughout the Rocky Gorge, Hammond Branch, and Dorsey Run watersheds following methods detailed in the County’s QAPP (DPW, 2001). Biological assessment methods within Howard County are designed to be consistent and comparable with the methods used by Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in their Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS). The County has adopted the MBSS methodology to be consistent with statewide monitoring programs and programs adopted by other Maryland counties. The methods have been developed locally and are calibrated to Maryland’s physiographic regions and stream types. Because MBSS methods dictate that habitat assessments occur during the Summer Index Period while sampling fish communities, which the County does not complete, physical habitat condition was assessed using the EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) (Barbour et. al, 1999) habitat assessment for high-gradient streams. Certain MBSS habitat parameters, namely percent shading, require full leaf out to accurately assess, which is often misrepresented during the Spring Index Period when leaves typically have not yet opened. However, it should be noted that MBSS physical habitat data is collected to supplement RBP data, and potentially for use in future investigations or comparisons. Locations of the bioassessment sites are shown in Figure 3 with the (NHD) stream layer.

6 Figure 3 – Cattail Creek, Upper Brighton Dam, and Lower Brighton Dam Bioassessment Sampling Locations

2.4.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Benthic macroinvertebrate collection followed the QAPP which closely mirrors MBSS procedures (DNR, 2017). Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling is conducted during the Spring Index Period (March 1st to April 30th) along a 75-meter reach. The multi-habitat D-frame net approach was used to sample a range of the most productive habitat types within the reach. In this sampling approach, a total of twenty jabs are distributed among the best available habitats within the stream system and combined into one composite sample. Sampled habitats include submerged vegetation, overhanging bank vegetation, leaf packs, mats of organic matter, stream bed substrate, submerged materials (i.e., logs, stumps, snags, dead branches, and other debris) and rocks. 2.4.2 Sample Processing and Laboratory Identification Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were processed and subsampled according to methods described in the MBSS Laboratory Methods for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Processing and Taxonomy (Boward and Friedman, 2000). Subsampling is conducted to standardize the sample size and reduce variation caused by samples of different sizes. In this method the sample is spread evenly across a gridded tray

7 and each grid is picked clean of organisms until a count of 120 is reached. The 120-organism target is used to allow for specimens that are missing parts or are not a late enough instar for proper identification. If samples were sorted beyond the 120-organism target, the sample was spread in a petri dish subdivided into grids and re-subsampled by randomly selecting grids and counting all specimens in each grid until the sample was within an acceptable range. The samples were sent to a lab (Aquatic Resources Center1) for processing and identification. Identification of the samples was conducted to the genus level for most organisms. Groups including Oligochaeta and Nematomorpha were identified to the family level while Nematoda was left at phylum. Individuals of early instars or those that were damaged were identified to the lowest possible level, which in most cases was family. Chironomidae was further subsampled depending on the number of individuals in the sample and the numbers in each subfamily or tribe. Most taxa were identified using a stereoscope. Temporary slide mounts were used to identify Oligochaeta to family with a compound scope. Chironomid sorting to subfamily and tribe was also conducted using temporary slide mounts. Permanent slide mounts were then used for final genus level identification. Results were logged on a bench sheet and entered into a spreadsheet for analysis. 2.4.3 Biological Data Analysis Data were analyzed using methods developed by MBSS as outlined in the New Biological Indicators to Better Assess the Condition of Maryland Streams (Southerland et al., 2005). The Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI) approach involves statistical analysis using metrics that have a predictable response to water quality and/or habitat impairment. The metrics selected fall into five major groups including taxa richness, taxa composition, tolerance to perturbation, trophic (feeding) classification and taxa habit. Raw values from each metric are given a score of 1, 3 or 5 based on ranges of values developed for each metric. The results are combined into a scaled BIBI score ranging from 1.0 to 5.0, and a corresponding narrative rating is applied. Three sets of metric calculations have been developed for Maryland streams based on broad physiographic regions. These include the coastal plain, piedmont and combined highlands physiogeographic regions. The Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam subwatersheds are all located in the piedmont physiogeographic region (see Figure 2). The benthic metrics, scoring criteria, and individual species tolerance were updated by DNR in 2005. The data collected in the first round of sampling of the Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam subwatersheds were analyzed using the old metrics (Stribling et. al 1998), and as such, the results were not directly comparable to the 2005, 2012, and 2017 sampling data. Therefore, all data from the 2001 sampling were recalculated using the updated metrics to allow for direct comparison to the current data (KCI, 2008). For this report, any mention of 2001 BIBI scores refer to these recalculated values. The following metrics and BIBI scoring were used for data analysis: Piedmont BIBI Metrics: Number of Ephemeroptera Taxa – Equals the total number Ephemeroptera Taxa in the sample. Ephemeroptera are generally considered pollution sensitive, thus communities dominated by Ephemeroptera usually indicate lower disturbances in water quality.

1 Address: 545 Cathy Jo Circle, Nashville, TN 8

Total Number of Taxa – Equals the richness of the community in terms of the total number of genera at the genus level or higher. A large variety of genera typically indicate better overall water quality, habitat diversity and/or suitability, and community health.

Number of EPT Taxa – Equals the richness of genera within the Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). EPT taxa are generally considered pollution sensitive, thus higher levels of EPT taxa would be indicative of higher water quality.

Percent Intolerant Urban – Equals the percentage of individuals in the sample that are considered intolerant to urbanization (tolerance values [TV] = 0 – 3). The percent of intolerant urban is expected to decrease with decreasing water quality.

Percent Chironomidae – Equals the percentage of individuals in the sample that are in the Chironomidae family. An increase in the percentage of Chironomidae is generally an indicator of decreasing water quality.

Percent Clingers – Equals the percentage of the total number of individuals who are adapted to attaching to surfaces in stream riffles. Higher percentages of clingers are representative of a decrease in stressors and higher water quality.

Information on trophic or functional feeding group and habit were based heavily on information compiled by DNR and from Merritt and Cummins (1996). Scoring criteria for the piedmont BIBI is shown below in Tables 3. The raw metric value ranges are given with the corresponding score of 1, 3 or 5. Table 4 provides the BIBI scoring ranges and corresponding biological condition ratings.

Table 3 – Biological Index Scoring for Piedmont Benthic Macroinvertebrates Score Metric 5 3 1 Total Number of Taxa ≥25 15 – 24 <15 Number of EPT Taxa ≥11 5 – 10 <5 Number of Ephemeroptera Taxa ≥4 2 – 3 <2 Percent Intolerant Urban ≥51 12 – 50 <12 Percent Chironomidae ≤4.6 4.7 – 63 >63 Percent Clingers ≥74 31 – 73 <31

Table 4 – BIBI Scoring and Rating BIBI Score Narrative Rating 4.0 – 5.0 Good 3.0 – 3.9 Fair 2.0 – 2.9 Poor 1.0 – 1.9 Very Poor

2.5 Physical Habitat Assessment Each biological monitoring site is characterized based on physical characteristics and various habitat parameters following the Environmental Protection Agency’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP)

9 habitat assessment for high gradient streams (Barbour et. al, 1999). The RBP habitat assessment consists of visually assessing ten biologically significant habitat parameters that evaluate a stream’s ability to support an acceptable level of biological health. Each parameter is given a numerical score from 0-20 and a categorical rating of optimal, suboptimal, marginal or poor. The parameters assessed for high gradient streams are listed in Table 5. Table 5 – RBP Habitat Parameters - High Gradient Streams Parameters Assessed Epifaunal substrate/available cover Channel alteration Embeddedness Frequency of riffles/bends Velocity/depth regime Bank stability Sediment deposition Vegetative protection Channel flow status Riparian vegetative zone width

The above parameters for each site (including QC sites) were summed to obtain a total habitat score. Since a reference score analysis has not been developed for Howard County watersheds, the percent comparability was calculated based on the highest attainable score (200). The percent of reference score, or percent comparability score, is then used to place each site into corresponding narrative rating categories as shown in Table 6.

Table 6 – RBP Habitat Score and Ratings Percent of Reference Narrative Rating >90.0 Comparable to Reference 75.1 – 89.9 Supporting 60.1 – 75.0 Partially Supporting <60.0 Non-supporting

2.6 Geomorphic Analysis The goal of the physical monitoring was to create a geomorphic characterization of the stream channels in the watershed. Assessment techniques include the cross sectional survey, substrate particle size analysis and measurement of channel slope.

2.6.1 Cross Section Analysis Cross sections were surveyed at each monitoring station to develop a channel characterization and measurement of cross sectional area and discharge. Methods followed the Howard County SOP. Each cross section was located on a representative cross-over reach and was surveyed with a laser level and stadia rod.

10

The cross sections include survey of the floodplain and all pertinent channel features including:  Top of bank  Bankfull elevation  Edge of water  Limits of point and instream depositional features  Thalweg  Floodprone elevation Sinuosity was calculated based on the length of the field-surveyed profile and the straight-line distance between the top and bottom of each profile. The floodprone width is estimated at an elevation two times the bankfull depth. Where possible, additional survey points were taken near the upstream, midpoint, and downstream end of the sampling reach to obtain the slope through the reach so that estimates of discharge could be derived. Survey points for slope calculations were typically taken at the top of riffle features, although this was not always possible, especially for sampling reaches on the Patuxent River mainstem that contained only one riffle in the vicinity of the sampling reach. The stream cross section, bed and bank material data and profile information (including slope) were analyzed using the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Reference Reach Spreadsheet Version 4.3L (Mecklenburg, 2006). The following values and ratios were calculated: Sinuosity Entrenchment ratio Bankfull cross section area Slope Bankfull height Velocity Floodprone width Bankfull width Discharge Width / depth ratio Mean depth Shear stress

2.6.2 Particle Size Analysis The channel bed and bank materials were characterized at each cross section using pebble count analysis. A single pebble count, modified from the technique developed by Wolman (1954), was conducted in each reach to determine the composition of channel materials and the median particle size for each site. The pebble count procedure was adapted from Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique (Harrelson et al, 1994). The pebble count was conducted at 10 transects across the entire assessment reach. Transects were positioned based on the proportion of riffles/pools/runs in the assessment reach as estimated by visual inspection. The count was conducted within the entire bankfull channel. The pebble counts provide roughness values necessary for calculations of velocity and discharge. 2.6.3 Rosgen Classification Additionally, a Rosgen Level II characterization (Rosgen, 1996) was completed for each stream reach based on field-collected data. Table 7 includes general descriptions for each channel type classification based on the Rosgen classification system for natural rivers (Rosgen, 1996).

11

Table 7 – Rosgen Level II Channel Type Description Channel Type General Description (from Rosgen, 1996) Aa+ Very steep, deeply entrenched, debris transport, torrent streams. A Steep, entrenched, confined, cascading, step/pool streams. High energy/debris transport associated with depositional soils. Very stable if bedrock or boulder dominated channel. B Moderately entrenched, moderate gradient, riffle dominated channel with infrequently spaced pools. Moderate width/depth ratio. Narrow, gently sloping valleys. Very stable plan and profile. Stable banks. C Low gradient, meandering, slightly entrenched, point-bar, riffle/pool, alluvial channels with broad, well-defined floodplains. D Braided channel with longitudinal and transverse bars. Very wide channel with eroding banks. Active lateral adjustment, high bedload and bank erosion. DA Anastomosing (multiple channels) narrow and deep with extensive, well-vegetated floodplains and associated wetlands. Very gentle relief with highly variable sinuosities and width/depth ratios. Very stable streambanks. E Low gradient, Highly sinuous, riffle/pool stream with low width/depth ratio and little deposition. Very efficient and stable. High meander/width ratio. F Entrenched, meandering riffle/pool channel on low gradients with high width/depth ratio and high bank erosion rates. G Entrenched “gully” step/pool and low width/depth ratio on moderate gradients. Narrow valleys. Unstable, with grade control problems and high bank erosion rates.

3 Results

3.1 Subwatershed Summaries A total of 30 sites were sampled in the Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam subwatersheds, ten within each individual subwatershed. Additionally, one biological QA/QC sample was collected in each subwatershed at stations where upstream habitat was considered similar. The summary results of the habitat assessment, biological assessment, land use, and Rosgen characterization (Rosgen, 1996) are divided among the three subwatersheds and presented in detail in this section. Maps of each subwatershed displaying the results of the RBP habitat assessment and BIBI are presented in Figures 4, 5 and 6. Summary data for each PSU is included in Tables 8, 9 and 10. Full data results are displayed in Appendices A through F.

3.1.1 Upper Brighton Dam In 2017, six of the ten sampling sites in the Upper Brighton Dam subwatershed were on first order streams, three were on second order streams, and one was on a third order stream. The field QC sample was collected at site 02-121-F-2017. The subwatershed had an average BIBI score of 3.97 and a ‘Fair’ condition rating, with scores ranging from 2.67 to 4.67. The average RBP habitat assessment comparability score was 66, or ‘Partially-Supporting’, with scores ranging from 53 (‘Non-supporting’) to 83 (‘Supporting’). Channels were generally classified as Rosgen type B, C, F, or G types with predominantly gravel substrate. A summary of the results for the Upper Brighton Dam subwatershed is found in Table 8.

12

Upper Brighton Site Descriptions:

02-103-R-2017 This site is located behind a residential property on Cabin Branch, a tributary to the Patuxent River northwest of Brighton Dam. Gravel was the dominant substrate type of this B4c channel. Within the 650-acre drainage area, the predominant land use is agriculture (61.1%) followed by forest (28.9%), and low density residential (10.0%). Impervious land cover accounted for 3.7% of the drainage area, in line with the subwatershed average of 3.6%. This site received the highest RBP physical habitat assessment score out of all 2017 sites sampled, with a score of 82.5 and a rating of ‘Supporting’. Raw, eroded banks were observed upstream and downstream of the site, however the banks within the site were observed to be stable with suboptimal benthic substrate. The right bank was forested and the left bank was an old pasture with large trees but no understory present. The PHI score was 73.1 with a rating of ‘Partially Degraded’. There were a total of 34 taxa in the benthic macroinvertebrate sample with 14 EPT taxa present. A third of the sample (33%) consisted of individuals intolerant to urban stressors. This station had 25% of sampled individuals in the Chironomidae family (midges). This station received an overall BIBI score of 4.0 and a ‘Good’ biological classification. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards.

02-104-R-2017 This site is located on an unnamed B4c stream that drains into the Patuxent River in the western extent of the subwatershed. The site is surrounded by forest, agriculture, and low density wooded residential properties. Water quality results indicated no parameters exceeding acceptable COMAR standards. At 86 acres, this site had the smallest drainage area of the subwatershed, and had 2.9% impervious land cover. The predominant land use is agriculture (67.1%) followed by low density residential (28.7%) and forest (4.2%). RBP habitat was rated as ‘Partially Supporting’ and received a comparability score of 65.5 due to marginal habitat and bank stability. The reach received a PHI score of 55.7, rating it as ‘Degraded’. Gravel was the dominant substrate types for this sampling reach. The station received an overall BIBI score of 4.00 and a ‘Good’ classification. This is a result of the benthic macroinvertebrate sample consisting of a total of 22 taxa, with nine (9) EPT taxa and four Ephmemeroptera taxa present as well as a high percentage of individuals intolerant to urban stressors (55%).

02-106-R-2017 This sampling reach is located on a F4 stream in Patuxent River State Park. The surrounding area is primarily forested. The site was predominately gravel substrate. The drainage area to this site is 1,021 acres. Agricultural land use accounts for 46.6%, followed by forest (33.9%) and low density residential at 19.5%. Impervious land cover accounted for 3.9% of the drainage area, in line with the subwatershed average of 3.6%. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards. The RBP habitat assessment indicated a ‘Partially Supporting’ habitat with a comparability score of 70.5 due to eroded meander bends resulting in poor bank stability scores on the right bank. The PHI score was 71.2, with a narrative rating of ‘Partially Degraded’. The station received an overall BIBI score of 4.33 and a ‘Good’ classification. There were a total of 32 taxa present in this benthic macroinvertebrate sample including 15 EPT taxa. This station also had 44% individuals intolerant to urban stressors, while having 23% tolerant Chironomids (midges).

13

02-107-R-2017 This site is located on a small, incised G 4/6 headwater stream with a substrate consisting of mostly gravel and silt/clay. The surrounding 129 acres drainage area consists primarily of forest and agriculture. Agriculture land use accounts for 83.0% of the drainage area, followed by low density residential at 13.3%, and forest land cover at 3.7%. Impervious land cover for this subwatershed, is 4.6%, only slightly higher than the subwatershed average of 3.6%. This site received an RBP habitat score of 53.0 with a rating of ‘Non- supporting’. The PHI score was the lowest of the subwatershed (48.3), with a rating of ‘Severely Degraded’. Water quality results indicated all parameters within acceptable COMAR standards. Although there were 28 taxa present in the benthic macroinvertebrate sample, only five (5) EPT taxa were present. Furthermore, only 16% percent of the individuals were intolerant to urban stressors, and almost half (47%) of the individuals were Chironomids (midges). As a result, this site received the lowest BIBI score of the watershed of 2.67 with a narrative rating of ‘Poor’.

02-121-F-2017 This site is located on the headwaters of the Patuxent River within the Patuxent River State Park. This stream was classified as a F4 channel with predominately gravel substrate. Within the 670-acre drainage area, the predominant land use is forest (31.7%) followed by agriculture (30.0%), low density residential (20.2%), and open urban land (13.2%). The high percentage of low density residential land use results in a drainage area with 5.1% imperviousness, the highest of all Upper Brighton Dam sites. Poor and marginal bank stability and vegetative protection, and marginal and suboptimal sediment deposition and velocity/depth regime resulted in a RBP habitat score of 67.0 and a rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. The PHI was scored at 54.1 with a narrative rating of ‘Degraded’. The benthic macroinvertebrate sample contained 34 taxa, 13 of which were EPT taxa. Chironomids (midges) accounted for only 18% of the sample, while 62% consisted of individuals intolerant to urban stressors. Based on the BIBI score of 4.33, this site was given a ‘Good’ biological condition rating. Water quality results indicated all parameters within acceptable COMAR standards. A QC sample was completed in the adjacent 75-meters reach upstream of this site, where water conditions and habitat resembled the original reach. The QC reach received an identical BIBI score of 4.33, resulting in a ‘Good’ biological condition rating. RBP habitat was also conducted at the QC site which received a score of 65.0 and a rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. The PHI score at the QC reach was 58.5, with a narrative rating of ‘Degraded’.

02-123-F-2017 This sampling reach is located in the upstream portion of Cabin Branch, just south of Woodbine Rd (Route 94). The reach is classified as a F4 channel, with a substrate predominately consisting of gravel. Of the 460-acre drainage area, 3.7% was comprised of impervious land cover. Land use in the drainage area is primarily agriculture and forested land cover (55.0% and 33.2%, respectively) followed by low density residential (11.8%). This site was given a PHI score of 68.3 and a rating of ‘Partially Degraded’. This site received a RBP score of 67.0, resulting in a rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. The water quality results indicated no parameters that exceeded acceptable COMAR standards. There were a total of 28 taxa in the benthic macroinvertebrate sample, nine (9) of which were EPT taxa. The sample was comprised of 32% Chironomids (midges) and 26% of the sample consisted of individuals intolerant to urban stressors. The overall BIBI score was 3.67 for this site, resulting in a ‘Fair’ biological condition rating.

02-201-R-2017 This site, located on the downstream end of Cabin Branch just above where it meets the Patuxent River, was classified as a C4 channel with predominately gravel substrate. This reach was very straight with no meander bends. At 5,527 acres, this site had the second largest drainage area for the entire Upper Brighton Dam subwatershed with 3.5% of the drainage area consisting of impervious 14 Figure 4 – Upper Brighton Dam PSU Sampling Results

15 land cover. This drainage area consisted primarily of agriculture (53.5%) and forested land cover (31.5%) followed by low density residential (14.5%). This site received a PHI score of 68.4 and a rating of ‘Partially Degraded’. Poor bank stability and vegetative protection scores resulted in a RBP habitat score of 65.5 and a rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. Water quality results indicated all parameters fell within acceptable COMAR standards. This station received a BIBI rating of ‘Good’ with a score of 4.00. Thirty-two total taxa were present in this benthic macroinvertebrate sample, 11 of which were EPT taxa and five of which were Ephemeroptera taxa. Twenty-two percent of the sample consisted of individuals intolerant to urban stressors. The benthic sample consisted of 62% clingers and 51% tolerant midges.

02-202-R-2017 This sampling reach is located just upstream from 02-201-R-2017 on Cabin Branch just north of Hipsley Mill Road. The reach had vertical, eroded banks and a debris jam was present at approximately 25 meters. The predominant land use is agriculture (54.4%), followed by forested land cover (30.5%) and low density residential (14.6%). Of the 5,338-acre drainage area, 3.4% was comprised of impervious land cover. This site received a PHI score of 61.3 resulting in a rating of ‘Degraded’. Classified as a C4 channel, this sampling reach was primarily gravel and silt/clay substrate. Poor bank stability and vegetative protection scores resulted in a RBP habitat score of 68.5 and a rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. There were a total of 30 taxa present in this benthic macroinvertebrate sample, consisting of 10 EPT taxa and five Ephemeroptera. Twenty-eight percent of the sample consisted of midges, 25% were intolerant to urban stressors, and 70% were clingers, resulting in a BIBI score of 3.67 with a rating of ‘Fair’. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards.

02-221-F-2017 This site is located on an unnamed tributary to the Patuxent River mainstem within a heavily forested portion of Patuxent River State Park. This reach was classified as a F4 channel type with a predominately gravel and sand substrate. Land use in the 1,128-acre drainage area is primarily forest (52.0%) and agriculture land cover (44.8%), with the remainder as low density residential (3.2%). The overall imperviousness in this drainage area is 2.0%, which is the lowest of all Upper Brighton Dam subwatershed sites. Poor and marginal bank stability, vegetative protection, and sediment deposition scores resulted in a RBP habitat assessment score of 60.5 and a rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. For PHI, a score of 59.2 and a rating of ‘Degraded’ was given. Water quality results indicated no parameters that exceeded acceptable COMAR standards. There were a total of 25 taxa in the sample. Within the benthic sample, nine EPT taxa and five Ephemeroptera taxa were present. Sixty-four percent of the individuals were intolerant to urban stressors and only 12% of individuals were of the Chironomidae family (midges). Because of the high percentage of intolerant taxa present, this site received a BIBI score of 4.67 and a biological rating of ‘Good’.

02-301-F-2017 This sampling reach is located in a third-order section of the Patuxent River mainstem, upstream of Route 94, within the Patuxent River State Park. At 8,834 acres, this site has the largest drainage area of all sites within the Upper Brighton Dam subwatershed. The primary land use is agriculture (44.0%) followed by forested land cover (42.5%), and low density residential (10.2%), which resulted in 3.6% imperviousness. This reach was classified as a C4 channel and the substrate was dominated by gravel. Poor bank stability and vegetative protection scores resulted in a RBP habitat score of 63.0 and a rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. A PHI score of 57.9 and rating of ‘Degraded’ was given to this site. Based on the BIBI score of 4.33, this site was given a ‘Good’ biological condition rating. In this benthic macroinvertebrate sample, 34 taxa were present, the most of all Upper Brighton Dam watershed sites. Of the 34 taxa, 13 were EPT taxa, four of which were Ephemeroptera. Individuals of 16 Table 8 – Upper Brighton Summary

Drainage Impervious RBP Rosgen Area Surface BIBI BIBI Comparability Channel Site ID (ac) Percent Score Rating Score RBP Rating PHI Score PHI Rating Type Partially 02-103-R-2017 650 3.7 4.0 Good 82.5 Supporting 73.1 Degraded B4c Partially 02-104-R-2017 86 2.9 4.0 Good 65.6 Supporting 55.7 Degraded B4c Partially Partially 02-106-R-2017 1,021 3.9 4.33 Good 70.5 Supporting 71.2 Degraded F4 Non- Severely 02-107-R-2017 129 4.6 2.67 Poor 53.0 supporting 48.3 Degraded G4/6 Partially 02-121-F-2017* 670 5.1 4.33 Good 67.0 Supporting 54.1 Degraded F4 Partially Partially 02-123-F-2017 460 3.7 3.67 Fair 67.0 Supporting 68.3 Degraded F4 Partially Partially 02-201-R-2017 5,527 3.5 4.0 Good 65.5 Supporting 68.4 Degraded C4 Partially 02-202-R-2017 5,338 3.4 3.67 Fair 68.5 Supporting 61.1 Degraded C4 Partially 02-221-F-2017 1,128 2.0 4.33 Good 60.5 Supporting 59.2 Degraded F4 Partially 02-301-F-2017 8,834 3.6 2.67 Good 63.0 Supporting 57.9 Degraded C4 Non- Minimum 86 2.0 2.67 Poor 53.0 supporting 48.3 Degraded -- Partially Maximum 8,834 5.1 4.67 Good 82.50 Supporting 73.1 Degraded -- Partially Partially Mean 2,384 3.6 3.97 Fair 66.3 Supporting 61.7 Degraded -- Standard Deviation 3,049 0.01 0.55 -- 7.5 -- 8.2 -- -- *QC sampling was conducted at this site

17 the Chironomidae family (midges) made up only 16% of the sample, and individuals intolerant to urban stressors accounted for 26% of the sample. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards.

3.1.2 Cattail Creek Seven of the ten sites sampled in 2017 within the Cattail Creek PSU were on first order streams as defined by the NHD stream layer, one site was on a second order stream, and two sites were on third order streams. The field QC sample was collected immediately upstream of site 03-301-R-2017. RBP habitat assessment scores ranged from 49.0, with a classification of ‘Non-supporting’ to 79.0 and a classification of ‘Supporting’. The mean RBP habitat score was 61.9 with a rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. There were only two sites that received biological condition ratings of ‘Good’, with scores of 4.00. Six sites received ‘Fair’ scores that ranged from 3.33 to 3.67. The remaining two sites received ‘Poor’ scores that ranged from 2.00 to 2.33. The mean BIBI score was 3.30, with an average biological condition rating of ‘Fair’. Stream reaches were classified as either B, C, G, or F channels, with bedrock, gravel, sand, or silt/clay dominated substrates. A summary of the results for the Cattail Creek subwatershed is found in Figure 5 and Table 9.

Cattail Creek Site Descriptions:

03-102-R-2017 This site is located on Little Cattail Creek and is approximately 50 meters away from the edge of the golf course on Cattail Creek Country Club property. This reach was classified as a F4/6 channel with silt/clay and gravel substrate. Water quality results indicated no parameters that exceeded acceptable COMAR standards. The land use within the 1,866-acre drainage area is predominantly agriculture (43.4%) followed by low density residential (27.0%) and forest (20.4%). The percentage of impervious surface in the drainage area is 8.1%, which is above the subwatershed average of 6.9%. This sampling reach received poor bank stability and vegetative protection scores, and as a result, this site received an RBP habitat a score of 60.0 and a rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. A PHI score of 56.2 was given to this site, resulting in a rating of ‘Degraded’. The BIBI score was 3.33, with a biological rating of ‘Fair’. Of the 34 taxa present, nine EPT taxa and three Ephemeroptera were present, with 35% of the sampling comprising individuals intolerant to urban stressors. The majority of the sample (73%) consisted of clingers.

03-103-R-2017 Located in a forested area immediately upstream from site 03-102-R-2017, this site is approximately 50 meters from a paved golf course road on Cattail Creek Country Club property. This sampling reach is a F4/5 channel. The predominant substrate of this stream is gravel, sand, and silt/clay. Poor bank stability and vegetative protection attributed to the RBP habitat assessment rating of ‘Partially Supporting’ with a score of 62.0. The PHI score was 57.3, resulting in a rating of ‘Degraded’. A total of 8.1% of the 1,818 acre drainage area consists of impervious land cover, above the subwatershed average. The dominant land use for this drainage area is agriculture (44.6%) followed by low density residential (27.6%) and forested land cover (20.9%). There were 25 taxa in the benthic macroinvertebrate sample, eight of which were EPT taxa and three of which were Ephemeroptera. Thirty-eight percent of the individuals in this sample were of the Chironomidae family (midges), while 71% of the sample consisted of clingers and 25% consisted of individuals intolerant to urban stressors. Overall, this site received a BIBI score of 3.33 with a narrative rating of 'Fair’. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards.

18 03-104-R-2017 This site is on a forested property owned by Cattail Creek Country Club adjacent to a low density residential neighborhood. A stormwater management facility is present on the right bank and outfalls to the middle of the reach. There was a large debris jam present within the lower one-third of the sample reach. Classified as a F4/5channel, the dominant substrates for this sampling reach are sand and gravel. Of the 1,602 acres, impervious surfaces comprised 8.0% of the drainage area. Agriculture is the predominant land use in this drainage area (47.5%) followed by low density residential (28.1%) and forested land cover (18.9%). Physical habitat was rated as 'Partially Supporting' and received a RBP habitat score of 63.0 due to unstable banks and poor vegetative protection. A PHI score of 66.0 resulted in a ‘Degraded’ condition rating. Water quality results indicated no parameters that exceeded acceptable COMAR standards. There were 29 taxa in this benthic macroinvertebrate sample with eight EPT taxa and four Ephemeroptera taxa present. Seventy-one percent of the sample consisted of clingers, 34% of individuals intolerant to urban stressors, and 28% individuals of the Chironomidae family (midges), resulting in a score of 3.67 and a corresponding biological condition rating of ‘Fair’.

03-108-R-2017 Located in the headwaters of Cattail Creek, southwest of the intersection of Route 97 and Route 144, this sampling reach was classified as a B5c channel with a predominately sand substrate. This reach begins at a road culvert at Millers Mill Road. The majority of the surrounding land use in the 95-acre drainage area is agriculture (46.2%) followed by low density residential (23.2%) and forested land cover (26.9%). Impervious surface accounted for 6.5% of the drainage area, which is in line with the subwatershed average of 6.9%. This reach had poor instream habitat, embeddedness, sediment deposition, frequency of riffles, and therefore received the second lowest habitat comparability score of all 2017 sites of 49.0, and a ‘Not Supporting’ habitat rating. The PHI score was 34.7 with a rating of ‘Severely Degraded’. This sampling reach also received a BIBI score of 2.33 and a biological rating of ‘Poor’. Of the 21 taxa present in the sample, five were EPT taxa and only one of which was Ephemeroptera. Individuals of the Chironomidae family (midges) made up the majority of this sample (61%) and only 19% of the sample consisted of individuals intolerant to urban stressors. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within COMAR standards.

03-113-R-2017 This site is located on a highly incised portion of Lisbons Little Creek southwest of the intersection of Route 94 and Route 144. The channel was characterized as a G6 channel with predominately silt/clay and sand substrate. Very little buffer was present on the left bank due to the proximity to Route 144. While no water quality parameters exceeded acceptable COMAR standards, slightly elevated conductivity (410.2 µS/cm) was measured at this site. The predominant land use in this drainage area is classified as agriculture (71.8%) with the remainder classified as low density residential accounting for 28.1%. The overall imperviousness within the 96-acre drainage area is 5.2%, which is below the subwatershed average of 6.9%. Because of marginal and poor scores for habitat, velocity/depth diversity, channel flow status, frequency of riffles, bank stability, vegetative protection, and right bank riparian width (facing downstream), this sampling reach received a RBP score of 57.0 and corresponding rating of ‘Not Supporting’. The PHI score was 42.0, which results in a rating of ‘Severely Degraded’. Of the 21 taxa present in this benthic macroinvertebrate sample, three EPT taxa were present, only one of which was Ephemeroptera taxa. Additionally, chironomids (midges) accounted for 34% of the sample and 14% consisted of individuals tolerant to urban stressors. This site received the lowest BIBI scores within this subwatershed with a score of 2.00 and a narrative rating of ‘Poor’.

19 03-123-F-2017 This sampling site is located on an unnamed tributary to Cattail Creek in a forested area east of Daisy Rd. The reach was classified as a B1 channel dominated by gravel and bedrock. In the 1,315-acre drainage area to this site, the majority of the surrounding land use is agriculture (71.3%) and forest land cover (18.9%), with the remainder classified as low density residential (9.4%). The percentage of impervious surface in the drainage area is 4.7%, which is the lowest of all Cattail Creek subwatershed sites. All water quality parameters were within COMAR limits. This site received the second highest RBP score of all 2017 sites (81.5) with a rating of ‘Supporting’ and a PHI score of 67.3 and rating of ‘Partially Degraded’. This benthic macroinvertebrate sample had a high number of taxa (35) and EPT taxa (16), eight of which were Ephemeroptera. Forty percent of the sample consisted of individuals intolerant to urban stressors, and 58% of the sample were clingers. The Chironomidae family (midges) made up 26% of the sample. As a result of a large percentage of individuals intolerant to urban stressors, this site received a BIBI score of 4.00 and a narrative rating of ‘Good’.

03-124-F-2017 This site was located on an incised portion of Dorsey Branch, adjacent to the Cattail Creek Country Club golf course. Classified as a B5/4c channel, the substrate of this sampling reach consisted of sand, gravel, and silt/clay. This site has a drainage area of 184 acres, 8.1% of which is impervious surface. Low density residential land use dominates this drainage area at 83.7%, followed by open urban land (10.8%) and agriculture (3.6%), which results in 8.1% impervious land cover. No water quality parameters exceeded acceptable COMAR standards. The PHI score was 47.1 with a rating of ‘Severely Degraded’. The RBP habitat assessment indicated a ‘Partially Supporting’ habitat with a score of 62.5. A total of 31 taxa were present in this benthic macroinvertebrate sample. Eight EPT taxa and two Ephemeroptera were present. Almost half of this sample consisted of chironomids (midges), accounting for 42% of the sample and 24% were individuals intolerant to urban stressors. Overall, this sample received a BIBI score of 3.33, with a rating of ‘Fair’.

03-221-F-2017 Located on the East Branch Cattail Creek in a forested buffer between two neighborhoods east of Route 97, this sampling reach was classified as a F5/6 channel dominated by sand and silt/clay substrate. A debris jam was present at the downstream end of the site. Water quality results indicated no parameters that exceeded acceptable COMAR standards. As a result of poor instream habitat, embeddedness, and bank stability, this site received a RBP habitat score of 56.5 with a rating of ‘Not Supporting’. A PHI score of 44.2 resulted in a rating of ‘Severely Degraded’. In this 2,751-acre drainage area, low density residential was the predominant land use (39.3%) followed by agriculture (42.5%) and 13.8% consisting of forested land cover. The overall impervious drainage is 8.0%, which is above the subwatershed average. This site received a BIBI score of 3.67 with a narrative rating of ‘Fair’. There were 25 taxa in this benthic macroinvertebrate sample, eight of which were EPT taxa and five Ephemeroptera taxa were present. The Chironomidae family (midges) made up 63% of the sample, while only 19% of this sample consisted of individuals intolerant to urban stressors and 73% of the sample consisted of clingers.

03-301-R-2017 This site is located on Cattail Creek upstream from Triadelphia Reservoir in a riparian zone east of Route 97. A two-meter section of the bottom of the channel was concrete lined where a walking path crossed the middle of the reach and approximately two meters of gabion is present on the right bank just upstream from this crossing. There is also a debris jam at the downstream end of the site. This sampling reach was classified as a C4 channel. Gravel and sand are the dominate substrate types for this channel. At 17,734 acres, this is the second largest drainage area of this subwatershed. Agriculture was the predominant land use (54.0%), followed by forest (21.9%) and low density residential (20.5%). The overall impervious drainage is 6.1%, which is slightly lower the subwatershed average.

20 RBP Habitat was rated as ‘Partially Supporting’ with a score of 65.0. The PHI score was 69.2, which resulted in a rating of ‘Partially Degraded’. While there was a moderately high number of total taxa (31), there was a low number of EPT taxa present (eight), and only three Ephemeroptera taxa present in the benthic macroinvertebrate sample. Chironomids (midges) made up 34% of the sample. Eighteen percent of this sample was comprised of individuals intolerant to urban stressors. This site received a BIBI score of 3.33, which resulted in a ‘Fair’ biological condition rating. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards. A QC sample was completed in the adjacent 75-meters reach upstream of this site, where water conditions and habitat resembled the original reach. The QC reach received a BIBI score of 4.00, resulting in a ‘Good’ biological condition rating. RBP habitat was also conducted at the QC site which received a score of 67.0 and a rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. The QC reach received a PHI score of 61.3, which resulted in a rating of ‘Degraded’.

03-321-F-2017 This site is located on Cattail Creek immediately upstream from Triadelphia Reservoir, and downstream from site 03-301-R-2017 in a riparian zone east of Route 97. This site had raw, vertical eroded banks and consisted primarily of pool and glide features, with only one small riffle at the downstream end. This sampling reach was classified as a C4 channel with a mix of gravel and silt/clay substrates. Water quality results indicated all parameters within acceptable COMAR standards. Because of poor bank stability and vegetative protection scores, this reach received a habitat comparability score of 64.5 with a ‘Partially Supporting’ classification. A PHI score of 56.3 and corresponding ‘Degraded’ rating was applied to this reach. At 17,777 acres, this is the largest drainage area of this subwatershed. Over half of the land use is agricultural land use (53.4%), with an additional 22.1% as forested land cover and 20.4% as low density residential. The overall impervious drainage is 6.1%, which is slightly lower than the subwatershed average. This sample had the highest total taxa identified of all 2017 sites (37), with twelve EPT taxa and six Ephemeroptera taxa. Individuals of the Chironomidae family (midges) dominated this sample at 48%. Sixteen percent of this sample consisted of individuals intolerant to urban stressors. The site received a BIBI score of 4.00 with a corresponding biological rating of ‘Good’.

21 Figure 5 – Cattail Creek PSU Sampling Results

22 Table 9 – Cattail Creek Summary

Impervious RBP Rosgen Drainage Surface BIBI BIBI Comparability RBP Channel Site ID Area (ac) Percent Score Rating Score Rating PHI Score PHI Rating Type Partially 03-102-R-2017 1,866 8.1 3.33 Fair 60.0 Supporting 56.2 Degraded F4/6 Partially 03-103-R-2017 1,817 8.1 3.33 Fair 62.0 Supporting 57.3 Degraded F4/5 Partially 03-104-R-2017 1,602 8.0 3.67 Fair 63.0 Supporting 66.0 Degraded F4/5 Non- Severely 03-108-R-2017 95 6.5 2.33 Poor 49.0 supporting 34.7 Degraded B5c Non- Severely 03-113-R-2017 96 5.2 2.00 Poor 57.0 supporting 42.0 Degraded G6

03-123-F-2017 1,315 4.7 4.00 Good 79.0 Supporting 61.3 Degraded B1 Partially Severely 03-124-F-2017 184 8.1 3.33 Fair 62.5 Supporting 47.1 Degraded B5/4c Non- Severely 03-221-F-2017 2,751 8.0 3.67 Fair 56.5 Supporting 44.2 Degraded F5/6 Partially Partially 03-301-R-2017* 17,734 6.1 3.33 Fair 65.0 Supporting 69.2 Degraded C4 Partially 03-321-F-2017 17,777 6.1 4.00 Good 64.5 Supporting 56.3 Degraded C4 Non- Severely Minimum 95 4.7 2.00 Poor 49.0 supporting 34.7 Degraded -- Partially Maximum 17,777 8.1 4.00 Good 79.0 Supporting 69.2 Degraded -- Partially Mean 4,524 6.9 3.33 Fair 61.9 Supporting 53.4 Degraded -- Standard Deviation 7,028 0.01 0.66 -- 7.7 -- 11.1 -- -- *QC sampling was conducted at this site

23 3.1.3 Lower Brighton Dam Seven of the ten sites sampled in the Lower Brighton Dam subwatershed in 2017 were located on first- order streams as defined by the NHD stream layer, one site was on a second-order stream, and two sites were on third-order streams. The field QC sample was collected at site 05-122-F-2017. All stream reaches were classified as B, C, F or G channels, with silt/clay, sand, or gravel dominated substrates. A summary of the results for the Lower Brighton Dam subwatershed is presented in Figure 6 and Table 10. Four sites within the Lower Brighton Dam PSU were rated as ‘Partially Supporting’ and six sites were rated as ‘Not Supporting’ based on the RBP habitat assessment scores. The mean RBP habitat comparability score of 56.9 for the subwatershed resulted in a ‘Not Supporting’ rating. Five of the ten sites sampled in the Brighton Dam subwatershed received biological condition ratings of ‘Fair’, one site received a rating of ‘Very Poor’, one site received a rating of ‘Poor’, and the remaining three sites received ‘Good’ biological ratings. BIBI scores ranged from a low of 1.67 to 4.67, which resulted in a mean BIBI score of 3.42 and an overall biological condition rating of ‘Fair’ for the subwatershed.

Lower Brighton Dam Site Descriptions:

05-103-R-2017 This site is located on a narrowly buffered unnamed tributary to the Lower Triadelphia Reservoir between low density residential properties on Lakeside Drive and Nichols Drive. A natural gas pipeline right-of-way was present at the upstream end of the site. The stream was classified as a G4/5 channel with gravel and sand as the dominant substrates. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards. Of the 484-acre drainage area, the dominant land use is low density residential (48.7%) followed by agriculture (46.2%) and forested land cover (5.1%). The high percentage of low density residential contributed to an impervious percentage of 7.5% that exceeds the subwatershed average of 6.3%. This sampling reach received a RBP habitat score of 54.5 and a rating of ‘Not Supporting’ due to poor vegetative protection and riparian vegetative zone width. The PHI also shows a ‘Degraded’ channel with a score of 51.2. The BIBI score of 4.67 was the highest in the Lower Brighton Dam subwatershed, with the biological condition rated as ‘Good’. Of the 25 total taxa identified in the sample, eleven were EPT taxa and six Ephemeroptera taxa were present. Only 16% of the sample consisted of individuals of the Chironomidae family (midges). Eight-percent of individuals were clingers and 20% of the individuals were intolerant to urban stressors.

05-105-R-2017 This site is located on a F6 channel with predominately silt/clay and sand substrate due to backwatered conditions of Triadelphia Reservoir. A beaver dam was present just downstream from the reach, and much of the benthic sample was taken from the banks due to the deep conditions caused by the beaver dam. The Triadelphia Mill Road culvert is approximately 20 meters upstream from the upstream end of the site. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards. Because of poor scores for instream habitat, embeddedness, channel alteration, sediment deposition, frequency of riffles, bank stability, and vegetative protection, this site received the lowest habitat assessment of all 2017 sites, with score of 29.0 and a ‘Non-supporting’ classification. The lowest PHI score in the 2017 set of sites was given to this site with a score of 26.3 and a rating of ‘Severely Degraded’. The dominant land use in the 2,205-acres drainage area is agriculture (45.3%), followed by low density residential (27.2%), and forested land cover (26.9%). Impervious surface accounted for 6.6% of the drainage area, which is slightly above the subwatershed average of 6.3%. There were 22 total taxa identified in the benthic macroinvertebrate sample, although only three EPT taxa were present, all of which were Ephemeroptera. Individuals intolerant to urban stressors only comprised 3% of the sample. Individuals of the Chironomidae family (midges) dominated this sample at 64%. Only 24 16% of the sample consisted of clingers. As a result, this site received the lowest BIBI score in the Lowest Brighton Dam subwatershed (1.67) with a corresponding biological rating of ‘Very Poor’.

05-106-R-2017 This site is located on an unnamed tributary upstream from Triadelphia Reservoir, north of Triadelphia Mill Road and upstream from site 05-105-R-2017. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards. With a predominantly gravel and cobble substrate, the sampling reach was classified as a F4 channel. This site received a RBP score of 60.5 and rating of ‘Partially Supporting’ due to marginal instream habitat, sediment deposition, channel flow status, riffle frequency, and bank stability. The PHI score was 57.3, which resulted in a rating of ‘Degraded’. This site had a drainage area of 1,845-acres with 46.0% classified as agriculture, 26.7% as low density residential, and 26.7% as forested land cover. Impervious surface percentage exceeded the subwatershed average at 6.7%. Of the 27 total taxa identified, nine EPT taxa were present in the sample, five of which were Ephemeroptera. Individuals intolerant to urban stressors accounted for 18% of the sample while 57% of the sample consisted of clingers. Fifty-five percent of the sample was made up of Chironomids (midges). Based on the BIBI score of 3.67, this site was given a ‘Fair’ biological condition rating.

05-108-R-2017 This site is located upstream from site 05-106-R-2017 on an eroded and incised unnamed tributary upstream from Triadelphia Reservoir. This reach was classified as a F4/5 channel with a sand, gravel, and cobble dominated substrate. Suboptimal instream habitat, embeddedness, velocity/depth diversity, and sediment deposition, but poor and marginal bank stability and vegetative protection led to a habitat assessment rating of ‘Partially Supporting’ with a percent comparability score of 70.0. The PHI score was 60.0, which resulted in a rating of ‘Degraded’. The predominant land use in the 1,815-acre drainage area is agriculture (45.7%), followed by low density residential (26.9%), and forested land cover (26.8%). Overall, the drainage area has 6.8% impervious surface, which is above the average for the subwatershed. The benthic macroinvertebrate sample consisted of 48% individuals of the Chironomidae family. There were 27 total taxa in this sample with ten EPT taxa and only three Ephemeroptera taxa. Twenty-five percent of the individuals were considered intolerant to urban stressors and 63% were clingers—resulting in a BIBI score of 3.33 and a biological condition rating of ‘Fair’. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards.

05-111-R-2017 This site is located upstream from site 05-108-R-2017 on an unnamed tributary upstream of Triadelphia Reservoir. The reach runs parallel to Howard Road, which is approximately 40 meters from the right bank. Green algae was abundant throughout the reach. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards. Classified as a C4/5 channel, the substrate of this sampling reach was dominated by gravel and sand. This sampling reach received an RBP habitat score of 60.0 and rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. A PHI score of 47.9 was given, resulting in a rating of ‘Severely Degraded’. The 900-acre drainage area is predominantly agricultural land use (54.7%), followed by low density residential (24.9%) and forested land cover (19.2%), resulting in 8.3% impervious surface, the highest percentage found in the Lower Brighton Dam subwatershed. There were 24 total taxa in this sample, five of which were an EPT taxa. There was only one Ephemeroptera taxon and 17% of the individuals were intolerant to urban stressors. Individuals of the Chironomidae family (midges) dominated this sample at 62%. This site received a BIBI score of 2.33 with a corresponding biological condition rating of ‘Poor’.

05-121-F-2017 This site is located just upstream from site 05-122-F-2017 on an unnamed tributary to Triadelphia Reservoir, upstream from Triadelphia Mill Road. Water quality results indicated all parameters were

25 within acceptable COMAR standards. Classified as a F4 channel, the substrate of this sampling reach was dominated by gravel, sand, and cobble. Gravel and cobble mid-channel and point bars were found throughout the site. This sampling reach received an RBP habitat score of 57.0 and rating of ‘Non- Supporting’. A PHI score of 63.2 was given, resulting in a rating of ‘Degraded’. Raw, eroded banks and meander bends were present. The 2,105-acre drainage area is predominantly agricultural land use (47.4%), followed by low density residential (27.0%) and forested land cover (25.0%), resulting in 6.6% impervious surface, only slightly higher than the average found in the Lower Brighton Dam subwatershed. There were 29 total taxa in this sample, 12 of which were EPT taxa. There were seven Ephemeroptera taxa and 25% of the individuals were intolerant to urban stressors. Individuals of the Chironomidae family (midges) dominated this sample at 57%. This site received a BIBI score of 4.00 with a corresponding biological condition rating of ‘Good’.

05-122-F-2017 This site is located just upstream from Triadelphia Mill Road and downstream from site 05-121-F- 2017 on an unnamed tributary to Triadelphia Reservoir. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards. Classified as a F4/5 channel, the substrate of this sampling reach was dominated by gravel and sand. Mid-channel and point bars consisting of sand and gravel were found throughout the site. This sampling reach received an RBP habitat score of 57.0 and rating of ‘Non-Supporting’. A PHI score of 42.8 was given, resulting in a rating of ‘Severely Degraded’. Raw and eroded stream banks were present throughout the reach. The 2,108-acre drainage area is predominantly agricultural land use (47.4%), followed by low density residential (27.0%) and forested land cover (25.1%), resulting in 6.6% impervious surface. There were 23 total taxa in this sample, ten of which were EPT taxa. There were seven Ephemeroptera taxa and 19% of the individuals were intolerant to urban stressors. Individuals of the Chironomidae family (midges) dominated this sample at 58%. This site received a BIBI score of 3.33 with a corresponding biological condition rating of ‘Fair’. A QC sample was collected in the adjacent 75-meters reach upstream of this site, where water conditions and habitat resembled the original reach. The QC reach received a BIBI score of 3.67 resulting in a ‘Fair’ biological condition rating. RBP habitat was also conducted at the QC site which received a score of 62.0 and a rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. The QC reach received a PHI score of 57.3, which resulted in a rating of ‘Degraded’.

05-201-F-2017 This site is located on an unnamed tributary to Triadelphia Reservoir downstream of Nichols Drive. A gas utility crosses the stream at the downstream end, and the pipe is exposed across the channel bed. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards. Classified as a B4c channel, the substrate of this sampling reach was dominated by gravel. This sampling reach received an RBP habitat score of 53.5 and rating of ‘Non-Supporting’. A PHI score of 49.4 was given, resulting in a rating of ‘Severely Degraded’. The 1,234-acre drainage area is predominantly low density residential (61.8%), followed by agricultural land use (23.8%) and forested land cover (12.5%), resulting in 8.3% impervious surface, the highest percentage found in the Lower Brighton Dam subwatershed. There were 32 total taxa in this sample, seven of which were EPT taxa. There were only three Ephemeroptera taxa and only 3% of the individuals were intolerant to urban stressors. Individuals of the Chironomidae family (midges) dominated this sample at 56%. This site received a BIBI score of 3.00, with a corresponding biological condition rating of ‘Fair’.

05-301-R-2017 This site is located on the Patuxent River within the Patuxent River State Park upstream from Roxbury Mill Road (Route 97) and upstream of the Triadelphia Reservoir. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards. Classified as a C4 channel, the substrate of this sampling reach was dominated by gravel, sand, and silt/clay. This sampling reach received an RBP habitat score of 68.0 and rating of ‘Partially Supporting’. A PHI score of 69.3 was given, resulting in a

26 rating of ‘Partially Degraded’. This site had the largest drainage area of all Lower Brighton Dam sites, at 21,542 acres. The drainage area consists of predominantly agricultural land use (47.9%), followed by forested land cover (41.8%) and low density residential (8.7%), resulting in 2.8% impervious surface, the lowest percentage found in the Lower Brighton Dam subwatershed. The highest number of tax out of all Lower Brighton Dam sites was found at this site, with 33 total taxa in this sample, ten of which were EPT taxa. There were only four Ephemeroptera taxa and 42% of the individuals were intolerant to urban stressors. Individuals of the Chironomidae family (midges) comprised 19% of this sample. This site received a BIBI score of 4.00 and a corresponding biological condition rating of ‘Good’.

05-321-R-2017 This site is located on the Patuxent River mainstem within the Patuxent River State Park upstream of the Triadelphia Reservoir. Water quality results indicated all parameters were within acceptable COMAR standards. Classified as a C4/5c- channel, the substrate of this sampling reach was dominated by sand and gravel. This sampling reach received an RBP habitat score of 59.0 and rating of ‘Non- Supporting’. A PHI score of 49.3 was given, resulting in a rating of ‘Severely Degraded’. This site had the second largest drainage area of all Lower Brighton Dam sites, at 19,395 acres. The drainage area is predominantly agricultural land use (46.3%), followed by forested land cover (42.6%) and low density residential (9.5%), resulting in 3.0% impervious surface, the second lowest percentage found in the Lower Brighton Dam subwatershed. There were 32 total taxa in this sample, 15 of which were EPT taxa. There were seven Ephemeroptera taxa, and 20% of the individuals were intolerant to urban stressors. Individuals of the Chironomidae family (midges) comprised 41% of this sample. This site received a BIBI score of 4.00, with a corresponding biological condition rating of ‘Good’.

27 Figure 6 – Lower Brighton Dam PSU Sampling Results

28 Table 10 – Lower Brighton Summary

Impervious RBP Rosgen Drainage Surface BIBI BIBI Comparability PHI PHI Channel Site ID Area (ac) Percent Score Rating Score RBP Rating Score Rating Type Non- 05-103-R-2017 484 7.5 4.67 Good 54.5 supporting 51.2 Degraded G4/5 Non- Severely 05-105-R-2017 2,205 6.6 1.67 Very Poor 29.00 supporting 26.3 Degraded F6 Partially 05-106-R-2017 1,845 6.7 3.67 Fair 60.50 Supporting 57.3 Degraded F4 Partially 05-108-R-2017 1,815 6.8 3.33 Fair 70.00 Supporting 60.0 Degraded F4/5 Partially Severely 05-111-R-2017 900 8.3 2.33 Poor 60.00 Supporting 47.9 Degraded C4/5 Partially 05-121-F-2017 2,105 6.6 4.00 Good 57.00 Supporting 63.2 Degraded F4 Non- Severely 05-122-F-2017* 2,108 6.6 3.33 Fair 57.00 supporting 42.8 Degraded F4/5 Non- Severely 05-201-F-2017 1,234 8.3 3.00 Fair 53.50 supporting 49.4 Degraded B4c Partially Partially 05-301-R-2017 21,542 2.8 4.00 Good 68.00 Supporting 69.3 Degraded C4 Non- Severely 05-321-R-2017 19,394 3.0 4.00 Good 59.00 supporting 49.3 Degraded C4/5c- Non- Severely Minimum 484 2.8 1.67 Very Poor 29.00 supporting 26.3 Degraded -- Partially Partially Maximum 21,542 8.3 4.67 Good 70.0 Supporting 69.3 Degraded -- Partially Mean 5,363 6.3 3.40 Fair 56.9 Supporting 51.7 Degraded -- Standard Deviation 7,997 0.02 0.89 -- 11.1 -- 12.0 -- -- *QC sampling was conducted at this site

29 4 Discussion and Comparison 4.1 Discussion 4.1.1 2017 Assessment Results Bioassessment Biological and physical habitat assessment results for 2017 in Cattail Creek, Upper Brighton Dam, and Lower Brighton Dam indicate subwatersheds that are minimally impaired. Only one of the thirty benthic macroinvertebrate samples received a rating of ‘Very Poor’ and four received a ‘Poor’ rating. The remaining sites (83%) were rated as either ‘Fair’ (12 sites) or ‘Good’ (13 sites). Site 05-105-R- 2017 was the only site to receive a biological condition rating of ‘Very Poor’. The average rating for each of the three subwatersheds was ‘Fair’, which is above the MBSS threshold for biological impairment. Physical Habitat RBP habitat assessment results indicate average subwatershed physical habitat conditions that were ‘Partially Supporting’ (Upper Brighton Dam and Cattail Creek) and ‘Non-supporting’ (Lower Brighton Dam). Only two sites received ‘Supporting’ physical habitat ratings (02-103-R-2017 and 03- 123-F-2017) within the Upper Brighton Dam and Cattail Creek subwatersheds. Water Quality All sites showed pH readings within the allowable COMAR range. Specific conductivity was elevated at several sites throughout the watersheds with values ranging from 122 to 470 µS/cm. A site-by-site breakdown of field-measured water quality parameters is included in Appendix B. While no COMAR standard for conductivity currently exists, a threshold for biological impairment in Maryland streams has been established at 247 µS/cm (Morgan et al., 2007). Thus, PSUs with mean values exceeding 247 µS/cm are not only indicative of increased anthropogenic disturbance, but also likely to see degraded biological conditions. Within this range of values, 60% of sites sampled in 2017 had a value less than 247 µS/cm. Average subwatershed conductivity values were 163 µS/cm, 273 µS/cm, and 268 µS/cm, for Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam, respectively. Specific conductivity is related to the type and concentrations of inorganic ions in solution. Natural sources within a watershed can include salt from poorly drained soils, salt from ground water, and erosion from geologic formations of marine origin. Increased stream inorganic ion concentrations (i.e., conductivity) in urban systems typically results from runoff over impervious surfaces, passage through pipes, and exposure to other infrastructure (Cushman, 2006). Roadway pollutants tend to concentrate along the edge of a road, making them susceptible to runoff to streams from rainfall or snow melt and flow-off from wind or vehicle turbulence. While elevated conductivity may not directly affect stream biota, its constituents (e.g., chloride, metals, and nutrients) may be present at levels that can cause considerable biological impairment. Geomorphology The geomorphic assessment results indicate a variable system. More than half (53%) of the channels sampled throughout the subwatersheds were classified as incised F or G channels and the remaining 47% were classified as stable type B or C channels. Gravel, sand, and silt/clay were the dominant substrate types in the majority of sampling reaches.

30 Imperviousness The average percentage of impervious area in the Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam subwatersheds is 3.6%, 6.9%, and 6.3%, respectively. Imperviousness for the areas draining to each sampling site range from 2.0% in Upper Brighton Dam to 8.3% in Lower Brighton Dam (see Appendix A for impervious values). The benthic community in a freshwater stream can be adversely affected by impervious cover and associated runoff at values as low as 10% (CWP, 2003). A statistical correlation between imperviousness and the BIBI was identified and is discussed in the following section. Results Correlations The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the linear association between two variables. Values of the coefficient range from -1 to 1. Negative values indicate an inverse relationship between the two values (i.e., when one variable increases the other decreases), while positive values indicate a positive relationship (i.e., both variables increase). The Pearson correlation coefficient indicates the strength of the association, with larger absolute values indicating stronger associations between the two variables. The significance level is a measure of the likelihood that the two variables are related, with smaller values indicating a stronger likelihood of relation. A significance level of 0.05 is typically used as a cutoff for strong correlations. The interpretation of a correlation is somewhat arbitrary, especially as values move away from +/- 1. Table 11 includes Pearson correlation coefficients and significance values. Figures 7 through 9 provide a visual display of the relationships between data variables and the best fit line, including R2 values, associated with the correlation. Pearson correlations between the BIBI scores and all parameters (percent imperviousness, specific conductivity, PHI habitat, and RBP habitat) showed significant relationships. The percentage of imperviousness to each sampling site indicates a negative relationship (correlation coeff.= -0.428, p 0.018) to BIBI scores, suggesting biological condition decreases with increased watershed imperviousness (Figure 7.)

Figure 7 - Relationship between the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI) and impervious surface in PSUs sampled during 2017 Howard County Biological Monitoring Specific conductivity and BIBI scores also showed a strong negative correlation (correlation coeff.= -0.613, p = 0.0003, Figure 8). These results support the notion that overall water quality and biological health are likely being affected by the amount of development, and hence imperviousness, in the

31 watershed. These findings are in concurrence with the Impervious Cover Model (CWP, 2003) which suggests that overall stream quality decreases with increased watershed impervious cover. A strong correlation was also observed between impervious percent and specific conductivity (correlation coeff.= 0.702, p <0.0001), suggesting that increased conductivity is due in large part to urban runoff. Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam all have relatively low impervious coverage, which may result in a weaker correlation. A larger sample size which includes more subwatersheds with a larger range of impervious cover may result in an even stronger negative correlation.

Figure 8 - Relationship between the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI) and specific conductivity in PSUs sampled during 2017 Howard County Biological Monitoring

The correlation with RBP habitat scores and BIBI scores (correlation coeff.= 0.587, p = 0.001) was significant, as was the correlation between PHI scores and BIBI (correlation of 0.658, p =<0.0001) (Figure 9), suggesting that physical habitat assessments are a predictor of biological condition in these watersheds.

32 Figure 9 - Relationship between the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI) and physical habitat in PSUs sampled during 2017 Howard County Biological Monitoring

33 Table 11 - Pearson Correlations Specific Percent RBP Habitat PHI Habitat Conductance Impervious BIBI n=30 Correlation 0.587 0.658 -0.613 -0.428 Significance 0.001 < 0.0001 0.0003 0.018 RBP Habitat n=30 Correlation 0.825 -0.336 -0.376 Significance < 0.0001 0.070 0.041 PHI Habitat n=30 Correlation -0.435 -0.401 Significance 0.016 0.028 Specific Conductance n=30 Correlation 0.702 Significance < 0.0001 Bold values are significant at the 0.05 level

4.1.2 Comparison of 2001, 2005, 2012, and 2017 Bioassessment data BIBI A summary of the results for 2001, 2005, 2012, and 2017 biological index data is shown in Table 12, and a box plot comparing BIBI scores for each subwatershed is displayed in Figure 10. It should be noted that current BIBI calculation methods were used for all rounds. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate differences in mean BIBI scores amongst the years. Significance testing was performed using Tukey’s HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) test with a confidence interval of 95%. Results of Tukey’s HSD test are presented in Table 13. Table 12 - Comparison of 2001, 2005, 2012, and 2017 BIBI Data Sampling Patapsco Number of Min. Max. Median Mean Narrative Standard Year Subwatershed sites sampled BIBI BIBI BIBI BIBI Rating Deviation Upper Brighton 10 3.67 5.00 4.17 4.20 Good 0.40 2001 Cattail Creek 10 1.67 4.00 3.67 3.50 Fair 0.65 Lower Brighton 10 1.67 4.67 4.00 3.67 Fair 0.89 Upper Brighton 10 2.67 5.00 4.17 4.17 Good 0.60 2005 Cattail Creek 10 2.00 4.33 3.67 3.57 Fair 0.70 Lower Brighton 10 3.33 5.00 4.67 4.17 Good 0.69 Upper Brighton 10 3.33 5.00 4.67 4.47 Good 0.52 2012 Cattail Creek 10 2.67 4.67 4.00 4.03 Good 0.55 Lower Brighton 10 2.00 5.00 4.17 3.97 Fair 0.89 Upper Brighton 10 2.67 4.67 4.00 3.97 Fair 0.53 2017 Cattail Creek 10 2.00 4.00 3.33 3.30 Fair 0.62 Lower Brighton 10 1.67 4.67 3.50 3.40 Fair 0.84

34 Figure 10 - Comparison of 2001, 2005, 2012, and 2017 BIBI scores.

35 Results from the Round 1 assessment (2001) indicated that the Upper Brighton Dam subwatershed was in a ‘Good’ overall biological condition, according to the updated BIBI scores (BIBI = 4.20 ± 0.40). Round Two results (2005) show a similar ‘Good’ biological condition (BIBI = 4.17 ± 0.60). Round 3 (2012) results also show a ‘Good’ biological condition (BIBI = 4.47 ± 0.52) and a small increase in score compared to the 2005 score. Finally, Round 4 (2017) results show a ‘Fair’ biological condition (BIBI = 3.97 ± 0.53), a fairly moderate, but not statistically significant, decline in score compared to the 2012 score. Tukey’s HSD test showed that the four Rounds were not significantly different from each other (Table 13). In the Cattail Creek subwatershed, the mean BIBI score was similar between 2001 (BIBI = 3.50 ± 0.65) and 2005 (BIBI = 3.57 ± 0.70), both with a narrative rating of ‘Fair’. The Round 3 assessment (2012) mean score was slightly higher (BIBI = 4.03 ± 0.55), with a narrative rating of ‘Good’. Results from 2017 show a decrease (BIBI = 3.30 ± 0.62) which is closer to what was observed in 2001. Tukey’s HSD test showed that the four Rounds were not significantly different from each other (Table 13). The Round 1 assessment (2001) revealed overall ‘Fair’ conditions in the Lower Brighton Dam subwatershed, according to the BIBI scores (BIBI= 3.67 ± 0.89). Scores increased slightly in 2005, resulting in a ‘Good’ biological condition (BIBI= 4.17 ± 0.69). In 2012, the mean BIBI was calculated at 3.97 ± 0.89, and received a ‘Fair’ biological condition rating. Finally, in 2017, the lowest BIBI scores were observed, with an average score of 3.40 ± 0.84, resulting in a ‘Fair’ biological condition rating. Tukey’s HSD test showed that the four Rounds were not significantly different from each other (Table 13). Table 13. Tukey (HSD) / Analysis of the differences between years with a confidence interval of 95%

Standardized Critical Pr > Subwatershed Contrast Difference difference value Diff Significant 2012 vs 2017 0.50 2.05 2.69 0.19 No 2012 vs 2005 0.30 1.23 2.69 0.61 No Upper 2012 vs 2001 0.27 1.09 2.69 0.70 No Brighton 2001 vs 2017 0.23 0.96 2.69 0.77 No 2001 vs 2005 0.03 0.14 2.69 1.00 No 2005 vs 2017 0.20 0.82 2.69 0.84 No 2012 vs 2017 0.73 2.46 2.69 0.08 No 2012 vs 2001 0.53 1.79 2.69 0.30 No 2012 vs 2005 0.47 1.56 2.69 0.41 No Cattail Creek 2005 vs 2017 0.27 0.89 2.69 0.81 No 2005 vs 2001 0.07 0.22 2.69 1.00 No 2001 vs 2017 0.20 0.67 2.69 0.91 No 2005 vs 2017 0.77 1.96 2.69 0.22 No 2005 vs 2001 0.50 1.28 2.69 0.58 No Lower 2005 vs 2012 0.20 0.51 2.69 0.96 No Brighton 2012 vs 2017 0.57 1.45 2.69 0.48 No 2012 vs 2001 0.30 0.77 2.69 0.87 No 2001 vs 2017 0.27 0.68 2.69 0.90 No Tukey's d critical value: 3.809

36

RBP Physical Habitat Assessment A summary of the results for 2001, 2005, 2012 and 2017 RBP physical habitat assessment data is shown in Table 14, and a box plot comparing RBP percent comparability scores for each subwatershed is displayed in Figure 11. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate differences in mean RBP scores amongst the years. In general, habitat assessment scores were found to be significantly higher in 2012 when compared to all other years. This may be a result of the subjectivity of habitat assessment scoring and the fact that different teams conducted the assessments each year. It is also possible that the randomly selected sites assessed in 2012 happened to actually have better habitat than those randomly selected during Round 1, 2, and 4. Results from the Round 1 assessment (2001) indicated that the Upper Brighton Dam subwatershed was ‘Partially Supporting’ (RBP = 61 ± 2.7), and Round 2 results (2005) show similar habitat conditions of ‘Partially Supporting’ (RBP = 66 ± 8.6). Round 3 results show a ‘Supporting’ habitat condition (RBP = 80 ± 2.7), but Round 4 results were more similar to Round 1 and 2, with ‘Partially Supporting’ habitat condition (RBP = 66 ± 7.1). Table 14 - Comparison of 2001, 2005, 2012, and 2017 RBP Physical Habitat Assessment Data Number Min. Max. Median Mean Sampling Patapsco of sites RBP RBP RBP RBP Standard Year Subwatershed Assessed % % % % Narrative Rating Deviation Upper Brighton 10 56 65 61 61 Partially Supporting 2.7 2001 Cattail Creek 10 37 71 55 54 Non-Supporting 10.7 Lower Brighton 10 41 63 59 55 Non-Supporting 6.8 Upper Brighton 10 55 81 62 66 Partially Supporting 8.6 2005 Cattail Creek 10 51 78 57 60 Non-Supporting 8.3 Lower Brighton 10 56 77 63 65 Partially Supporting 7.4 Upper Brighton 10 77 84 79 80 Supporting 2.7 2012 Cattail Creek 10 52 87 80 76 Supporting 9.7 Lower Brighton 10 48 85 74 72 Partially Supporting 9.4 Upper Brighton 10 53 83 66 66 Partially Supporting 7.1 2017 Cattail Creek 10 49 82 62 62 Partially Supporting 7.9 Lower Brighton 10 29 70 58 57 Non-Supporting 10.6 Results from the Round 1 assessment (2001) indicated that the Cattail Creek subwatershed was ‘Non- Supporting’ (RBP = 54 ± 10.7). Round 2 results (2005) show similar habitat conditions of ‘Non- Supporting’ (RBP = 60 ± 8.3), while Round 3 results showed an improvement to ‘Supporting’ habitat condition (RBP = 76 ± 9.7). Finally, 2017 results indicated ‘Partially Supporting’ habitat conditions (RBP = 62 ± 7.9). The Lower Brighton Dam subwatershed saw ‘Non-Supporting’ RBP conditions in 2001 (RBP = 55 ± 6.8). Round 2 results (2005) show slight improvement in RBP conditions and was rated ‘Partially Supporting’ (RBP = 65 ± 7.4). RBP containers were scored ‘Partially Supporting’ again in 2012 (RBP = 72 ± 9.4). However, RBP conditions decreased to ‘Non-Supporting’ in 2017 (RBP = 57 ± 10.6), similar to the scores of 2001.

37

Figure 11 - Comparison of 2001, 2005, 2012 and 2017 RBP Physical Habitat Assessment scores.

38

5 Conclusion and Recommendations

This report is the first annual report of Round 4 (2017) of the Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program. These conclusions and recommendations provide context for interpreting results and identifying possible future revisions. Results of the 2017 assessment indicate minimally impaired biological conditions in all three watersheds, but no statistically significant changes in mean BIBI scores were observed in any subwatersheds since Round 1 sampling. Physical habitat scores showed some statistically significant changes; in particular, 2012 results are much higher than other years. This is likely a result of the inherent subjectivity of the habitat scoring and changes in field teams over the years. While a trend of slightly increased BIBI results in 2012 can be observed in Upper Brighton Dam and Cattail Creek, there was no significant difference between the BIBI scores over the years. Biological communities respond to a combination of environmental factors, commonly referred to as stressors. Stressors can be organized according to the five major determinants of biological integrity in aquatic ecosystems, which include water chemistry, energy source, habitat structure, flow regime, and biotic interactions (Karr et al., 1986; Angermeier and Karr, 1994; Karr and Chu, 1998). The cumulative effects of human activities within the County’s sampling units often results in an alteration of at least one, if not several, of these factors with detrimental consequences for the aquatic biota. Determining which specific stressors are responsible for the observed degradation within a stream or PSU is a challenging task, given that many stressors co-exist and synergistic effects can occur. Furthermore, an added challenge in identifying the stressors affecting stream biota is that the water quality and physical habitat data collected by the County’s monitoring program are not comprehensive (i.e., they do not include many possible stressors). For instance, virtually no data are available regarding biotic interactions and energy sources and only limited data regarding flow regime variables, such as land use and impervious cover, are included. Stressor relationships with stream biotic components, and their derived indices (i.e., BIBI), are often difficult to partition from complex temporal–spatial data sets primarily due to the potential array of multiple stressors working at the reach to landscape scale in small streams (Helms et al. 2005; Miltner et al., 2004; Morgan and Cushman, 2005; Volstad et al., 2003; Morgan et al., 2007). Therefore, it should be noted that the current level of analysis cannot identify all stressors for the impaired sites, nor will the stressors identified include all of the stressors present.

5.1 Recommendations for Future Program Development Comparability with Statewide Methods Howard County adopted the DNR’s MBSS methods in 2001. The MBSS program continues to evolve and refine their sampling design, field procedures, and data analysis protocols, with the most recent field sampling protocols having been updated in 2014. While no changes have occurred to the benthic macroinvertebrate collection methods implemented herein, additional surveys have been added to the data collection efforts (i.e., vernal pool search, invasive vegetation search), which may be of interest to the County. The County should continue to update their methods in the future to stay current with the latest MBSS sampling protocols, especially with regard to benthic macroinvertebrate sampling. In addition, the County should continue to ensure that all personnel collecting macroinvertebrate samples have been certified by MBSS in benthic macroinvertebrate sample collection procedures.

39

Quality Assurance and Quality Control The QA/QC procedures outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program (Howard County, 2001) should be re- evaluated considering the evolution of the metric scoring system, which may not be appropriate for incremental data such as that found in the scaled BIBI metrics. The BIBI scoring system does not use a continuous interval (e.g., 0 – 100 scale). That is, each metric is assigned a value of 1, 3, or 5 based on threshold breaks, which are then averaged for a final BIBI score. This means that scores increase incrementally by 0.3 or 0.4. Additionally, the relative percent difference (RPD) between low scores (2.0 and 2.3) will be higher than a comparison of higher scores (4.7 and 5.0). This can lead to a site not meeting the measurement quality objective (MQO) despite the scores being only one scoring increment apart. A relatively minor difference between samples can lead to the MQO not being met. Fish Community Assessments MBSS conducts fish sampling during the summer index period, which provides additional information regarding stream biodiversity. Fish species exhibit diverse morphological, ecological, and behavioral adaptations to their natural habitat and, consequently, are particularly effective indicators of the condition of aquatic systems (Karr et al., 1986; Fausch et al., 1990; Simon and Lyons, 1995; McCormick et al., 2001). Given that fish assemblages respond differently to some stressors than benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages, data from fish sampling can assist in identifying stressors that may be impacting specific streams as well as provide an improved understanding of the biological condition of streams throughout the County via the combined index of biotic integrity (CIBI), which incorporates both BIBI and fish IBI (FIBI) results into a single biological index. Furthermore, fish sampling data can be used to evaluate biotic interactions, particularly the effects of non-native and invasive species on native fauna. It is recommended that the County consider the addition of fish sampling to their program to not only allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the biological condition of the County’s streams, but also to assist in the identification of additional stressors impacting their streams. Furthermore, the addition of fish sampling will allow for improved data sharing between the County and State agencies (i.e., DNR, MDE), which is essential to the protection and preservation of the Chesapeake Bay. Geomorphic Assessments While Rosgen Level II assessments provide useful information for characterizing the overall channel morphology, stream classification was not shown to be a useful predictor of biological condition or current land use characteristics in neighboring Anne Arundel County (Hill and Pieper, 2011; Hill et al., 2014). It is likely that the dominant geomorphological processes (i.e., erosion, transport, or deposition) are more important to the condition of the benthic macroinvertebrate communities than the current stream type as classified by the Rosgen approach. Perhaps a more rapid assessment of each reach using the channel evolution model (CEM; Schumm et al. 1984, Simon and Hupp 1986, and Simon 1989) would provide sufficient data regarding the geomorphological processes in each stream. The CEM identifies distinct stages of a channel’s progression from a pre-modified condition through incising, widening, aggrading, re-stabilizing, and back to a quasi-equilibrium state, which may be observed in one reach overtime or various stages may be observed within an entire drainage network at a given time.

40

6 References Angermeier, P.L., and J.R. Karr. 1994. Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. Bioscience 44:690-697. Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water; Washington D.C. Boward, D. and E. Friedman. 2000. Maryland Biological Stream Survey Laboratory Methods for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Processing and Taxonomy. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. Annapolis, MD. CBWP-MANTA-EA-00-6. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. March 2003. Cushman, S.F. 2006. Fish movement, habitat selection, and stream habitat complexity in small urban streams. Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Fausch, K. D., J. Lyons, J. R. Karr, and P. L. Angermeier. 1990. Fish communities as indicators of environmental degradation. Pages 123–144 in S. M. Adams, editor. Biological indicators of stress in fish. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 8, Bethesda, Maryland. Gallardo, A.C., J.E. Garrish, C.R. Hill, and J.B. Stribling. 2006. Biological Assessment of the Little Patuxent River, Cattail Creek, and Brighton Dam Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD for Howard County, Department of Public Works. Stormwater Management Division. Columbia, MD. Howard County Department of Public Works (DPW). 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program. Howard County, Maryland. Department of Public Works, Stormwater Management Division. Columbia, MD. Harrelson, C.C, C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: An illustrated guide to field technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Hill, C. R., Crunkleton, M.C. and M.J. Pieper. 2014. Aquatic Biological Assessment of the Watersheds of Anne Arundel County, Maryland: Round Two 2009 – 2013. Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works, Watershed, Ecosystem, and Restoration Services, Annapolis, Maryland. Hill, C. R., and M.J. Pieper. 2011. Aquatic Biological Assessment of the Watersheds of Anne Arundel County, Maryland: Round One 2004 – 2008. Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works, Watershed, Ecosystem, and Restoration Services, Annapolis, Maryland. Helms B.S., Feminella J.W., and S. Pan. 2005. Detection of biotic responses to urbanization using fish assemblages from small streams of western Georgia, USA. Urban Ecosystems 8:39–57 Karr, J.R. and E.W. Chu. 1998. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC. Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5. Champaign, Illinois.

41

KCI. 2008. Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment Calculation of Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI) Scoring. Prepared by KCI Technologies, Inc., Hunt Valley, MD for Howard County Department of Public Works Bureau of Environmental Services, Stormwater Management Division, NPDES Watershed Management Programs. Columbia, MD. August 2008. Maryland Department of the Environment. Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). Continuously updated. Code of Maryland Regulations, Title 26- Department of the Environment. 26.08.02.01- Water Quality. DNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources). 2017. Maryland Biological Stream Survey: Round Four Field Sampling Manual. 12-3142014-700. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. Annapolis, Maryland. Originally published January 2014. Revised January 2017. McCormick, F. H., R. M. Hughes, P. R. Kaufmann, D. V. Peck, and J. L. Stoddard. 2001. Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:857-877. Mecklenburg, Dan. 2006. The Reference Reach Spreadsheet. Version 4.3 L. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Merritt, R.W. and Cummins, K.W. 1996 An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 3rd edition, Kendall / Hunt Publishing Company. Miltner R.J., White D., and C. Yoder. 2004. The biotic integrity of streams in urban and suburbanizing landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69:87–100 Morgan R.P., and S.F. Cushman. 2005. Urbanization effects on stream fish assemblages in Maryland, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:643–655 Morgan R.P., K.M. Kline, and S.F. Cushman. 2007. Relationships among nutrients, chloride, and biological indicies in urban Maryland streams. Urban Ecosystems 10:153-177 Pavlik, K.L. and J.B. Stribling. 2001. Biological Assessment of the Little Patuxent River, Cattail Creek, and Brighton Dam Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD for Howard County, Department of Public Works. Stormwater Management Division. Columbia, MD. Rogers, G., B. Franks, T. Hage, and M. Southerland. 2012. Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment, Upper Brighton Dam, Lower Brighton Dam, and Cattail Creek Watersheds- 2012. Prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia MD for Howard County, Department of Public Works, Stormwater Management Division, Columbia MD. December 2012. Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. Schumm, S.A., M.D. Harvey, and C.C. Watson. 1984. Incised Channels: Morphology, Dynamics, and Control. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO. Simon, A., and C.R. Hupp. 1986. Channel Evolution in Modified Tennessee Streams. In: Proceedings of the 4th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 5.71-5.82. Simon, A. 1989. A Model of Channel Response in Disturbed Alluvial Channels. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms: 14, 11-26. Simon, T. P., and J. Lyons. 1995. Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate water resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. Pages 245–262 in W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon, editors. Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 42

Southerland, M.T., G.M. Rogers, M.J. Kline, R.P. Morgan, D.M. Boward, P.F. Kazyak, R.J. Klauda, S.A. Stranko. 2005. New Biological Indicators to Better Assess the Condition of Maryland Streams. DNR-12-0305-0100. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. Annapolis, MD. Stribling, J.B., Jessup, B.K. and J.S. White. 1998. Development of a Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Maryland Streams. CBWP-EA-98-3. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. Annapolis, MD. Volstad J.H., Roth N.E., Mercurio G., Southerland M.T., and D.E. Strebel. 2003. Using environmental stressor information to predict the ecological status of Maryland non-tidal streams as measured by biological indicators. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 84:219–242 Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of American Geophysical Union.

43

Appendix A: Land Use and Imperviousness

Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, Lower Brighton Dam Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment 2017 Summary Land Use and Percent Impervious Drainage Area % Site ID (Acres)1 VLDR LDR MDR HDR CI INST OUL AGR FOR OW WET BG TR Impervious2 Upper Brighton Dam 02-103-R-2017 650 0% 10.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 61.1% 28.9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.7% 02-104-R-2017 86 0% 28.7% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0% 67.1% 4.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.9% 02-106-R-2017 1,021 0% 19.5% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 0% 46.6% 33.9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.9% 02-107-R-2017 129 0% 13.3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 83.0% 3.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.6% 02-121-F-2017 670 0% 20.2% 0.9% 0% 3.2% 0.2% 13.2% 30.0% 31.7% 0.6% 0% 0% 0% 5.1% 02-123-F-2017 460 0% 11.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 55.1% 33.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.7% 02-201-R-2017 5,527 0% 14.5% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 0% 53.5% 31.5% 0% 0.4% 0% 0% 3.5% 02-202-R-2017 5,338 0% 14.6% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 0% 54.3% 30.5% 0% 0.4% 0% 0% 3.4% 02-221-F-2017 1,128 0% 3.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44.8% 52.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.0% 02-301-F-2017 8,834 0% 10.2% 0.8% 0% 0.7% 0.6% 1.0% 44.0% 42.5% 0.1% 0% 0% 0% 3.6% Cattail Creek 03-102-R-2017 1,866 0% 27.0% 0% 1.5% 0.5% 4.1% 2.8% 43.4% 20.4% 0.2% 0% 0% 0% 8.1% 03-103-R-2017 1,818 0% 27.5% 0% 1.6% 0.5% 4.2% 0.5% 44.6% 20.9% 0.2% 0% 0% 0% 8.1% 03-104-R-2017 1,602 0% 28.1% 0% 0% 0.6% 4.7% 0% 47.5% 18.9% 0.3% 0% 0% 0% 8.0% 03-108-R-2017 95 0% 23.2% 0% 0% 3.3% 0.5% 0% 46.2% 26.9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.5% 03-113-R-2017 96 0% 28.1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 71.8% 0.1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.2% 03-123-F-2017 1,315 0% 9.4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 71.7% 18.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.7% 03-124-F-2017 184 0% 83.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10.8% 3.6% 1.9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8.1% 03-221-F-2017 2,751 0% 39.3% 0% 0% 0% 2.0% 2.4% 42.5% 13.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8.0% 03-301-R-2017 17,734 0% 20.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 1.3% 1.1% 54.0% 21.9% 0.2% 0% 0% 0.5% 6.1% 03-321-F-2017 17,777 0% 20.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 1.3% 1.1% 53.9% 22.1% 0.2% 0% 0% 0.5% 6.1% Lower Brighton Dam 05-103-R-2017 484 0% 48.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 46.2% 5.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7.5% 05-105-R-2017 2,205 0% 27.2% 0% 0% 0.5% 0.1% 0% 45.3% 26.9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.6% 05-106-R-2017 1,845 0% 26.7% 0% 0% 0.6% 0.1% 0% 46.0% 26.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.7% 05-108-R-2017 1,815 0% 26.9% 0% 0% 0.6% 0.1% 0% 45.7% 26.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.8% 05-111-R-2017 900 0% 24.9% 0% 0% 1.2% 0% 0% 54.7% 19.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8.3% 05-121-F-2017 2,105 0% 27.0% 0% 0% 0.5% 0.1% 0% 47.4% 25.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.6% 05-122-F-2017 2,108 0% 27.0% 0% 0% 0.5% 0.1% 0% 47.4% 25.1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.6% 05-201-R-2017 1,234 0% 61.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 23.8% 12.5% 1.9% 0% 0% 0% 8.3% 05-301-R-2017 21,542 0% 8.7% 0.3% 0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 47.9% 41.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0% 0% 2.8% 05-321-F-2017 19,395 0% 9.5% 0.4% 0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 46.3% 42.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0% 0% 3.0%

3,4 VLDR: Very Low Density Residential (191,192) OUL: Open Urban Land (18) 1 Drainage areas provided are delineated to each sampling site. LDR: Low Density Residential (11) AGR: Agriculture (21, 22, 23, 25, 241, 242) 2 See text for discussion of impervious percent. MDR: Medium Density Residential (12) FOR: Forest (41 - 44) 3 Land use is based on Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) 2010 data. HDR: High Density Residential (13) OW: Open Water (50) 4 Numbers in parentheses correspond to MDP land use codes. CI: Commercial & Industrial (14, 15) WET: Wetlands (60) INST: Institutional (16) BG: Bare Ground (73) TR: Transportation (80) TR: Transportation (80)

Appendix A Appendix B: Water Quality Data Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, Lower Brighton Dam Howard County 2017 Biological Monitoring and Assessment Summary Water Quality Data

pH Water Temperature Dissolved Oxygen Turbidity Conductivity Site ID Collection Date °C mg/l NTU µS/cm Upper Brighton Dam 02-103-R-2017 4/12/2017 7.48 13.00 10.23 2.3 197.2 02-104-R-2017 4/14/2017 7.12 16.00 9.81 4.4 151.2 02-106-R-2017 4/12/2017 6.91 13.70 9.90 1.8 141.6 02-107-R-2017 4/13/2017 6.96 17.00 9.63 3.1 157.6 02-121-F-2017 4/14/2017 7.33 12.10 11.24 2.1 235.1 02-121-F-2017 QC 4/14/2017 7.01 13.90 10.89 3.0 237.1 02-123-F-2017 4/13/2017 7.26 16.20 10.44 4.0 149.1 02-201-R-2017 4/7/2017 7.68 9.20 10.83 17.8 139.1 02-202-R-2017 4/7/2017 7.29 9.50 11.17 13.8 142.8 02-221-F-2017 4/14/2017 7.77 11.00 10.91 1.8 121.6 02-301-F-2017 4/13/2017 7.63 12.80 11.42 1.8 190.2 Cattail Creek 03-102-R-2017 3/30/2017 7.68 9.10 10.82 1.9 289.0 03-103-R-2017 3/30/2017 7.48 9.20 11.47 1.7 291.3 03-104-R-2017 3/30/2017 7.40 9.40 11.86 1.9 307.4 03-108-R-2017 4/5/2017 6.91 17.00 10.76 2.6 246.7 03-113-R-2017 4/7/2017 7.66 8.60 8.62 18.0 470.2 03-123-F-2017 4/5/2017 6.94 13.90 11.67 4.0 145.5 03-124-F-2017 4/5/2017 7.57 11.10 10.95 1.8 236.0 03-221-F-2017 3/29/2017 6.94 15.00 10.97 1.8 265.8 03-301-R-2017 3/29/2017 7.12 12.40 10.39 4.4 241.9 03-301-R-2017 QC 3/29/2017 6.98 12.80 10.85 5.2 242.3 03-321-F-2017 3/29/2017 7.43 2.50 9.58 5.9 240.8 Lower Brighton Dam 05-103-R-2017 3/21/2017 7.38 8.50 11.97 2.8 232.5 05-105-R-2017 3/21/2017 7.23 10.80 10.36 1.7 254.4 05-106-R-2017 3/23/2017 6.91 6.80 12.94 1.1 257.0 05-108-R-2017 4/12/2017 7.24 16.30 10.84 3.5 250.4 05-111-R-2017 3/24/2017 7.53 5.20 11.69 0.4 464.0 05-121-F-2017 3/23/2017 7.81 4.00 12.27 1.2 256.0 05-122-F-2017 3/23/2017 8.15 3.90 12.14 1.4 253.1 05-122-F-2017 QC 3/23/2017 7.97 3.90 12.26 1.2 255.3 05-201-F-2017 3/21/2017 8.13 7.60 11.09 1.4 370.6 05-301-R-2017 3/24/2017 7.50 5.10 13.02 1.9 172.9 05-321-F-2017 3/24/2017 7.00 6.80 13.75 1.8 173.2

Appendix B Appendix C: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Project Name: Howard County Countywide Biomonitoring Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name:

03-102-R- 03-103-R- 03-104-R- 03-108-R- 03-113-R- 03-124-F- 03-221-F- 03-301-R- 03-301-R- 03-321-F- Metric 03-123-F-2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017QC 2017 Raw Scores Raw Scores Total Number of Taxa 34 25 29 21 21 35 31 25 31 36 37 Number of EPT Taxa 9 8 8 5 3 16 8 8 8 11 12 Number of Ephemeroptera Taxa 3 3 4 1 1 8 2 5 3 5 6 Percent Intolerant Urban 35.1 25.4 33.9 18.9 14.0 40.2 24.0 18.5 18.3 16.5 15.8 Percent Chironomidae 31.6 37.7 27.7 61.1 34.4 26.2 42.3 63.0 33.9 40.9 48.3 Percent Clingers 72.8 71.1 72.3 23.2 10.8 57.9 43.3 73.1 43.5 51.3 52.5 BIBI Scores BIBI Scores Total Number of Taxa 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 Number of EPT Taxa 3 3 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 5 5 Number of Ephemeroptera Taxa 3 3 5 1 1 5 3 5 3 5 5 Percent Intolerant Urban 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Percent Chironomidae 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Percent Clingers 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 BIBI Score 3.3 3.3 3.7 2.3 2.0 4.0 3.3 3.7 3.3 4.0 4.0 Narrative Rating Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Fair Fair Fair Good Good

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/28/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 03-102-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Ablabesmyia Ablabesmyia L 1 Predator sp 8.1 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Ancyronyx Ancyronyx L 1 Scraper cn, sp 7.8 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Ancyronyx Ancyronyx A 1 Scraper cn, sp 7.8 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 1 Collector cn 8 Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea Caecidotea A 1 Collector sp 2.6 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 8 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 3 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Chironominae P 1 Collector 0 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 5 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes L 1 Collector bu 9 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia Dubiraphia A 1 Scraper cn, cb 5.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 27 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Glossosoma Glossosoma L 4 Scraper cn 0.01 Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae not identified Glossosomatidae P 1 Scraper cn 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae not identified Heptageniidae L 2 Scraper cn 2.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus P 1 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 2 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae not identified Hydropsychidae P 3 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperla Isoperla L 1 Predator cn, sp 2.4 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPlanorbidae Menetus Menetus A 3 Scraper cb 7.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes L 4 Filterer cn 4.9 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 3 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Nanocladius Nanocladius L 1 Collector sp 7.6 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus A 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus L 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Orthocladiinae P 1 Collector 0 7.6 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus P 1 Collector sp 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 7 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Potthastia Potthastia L 1 Collector sp 0.01 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 2 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium Simulium L 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella L 1 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis A 3 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Sublettea Sublettea L 1 Collector - 10 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 5 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 7 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia gro Thienemannimyia group L 1 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 1 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia P 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/28/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 03-103-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae Acroneuria Acroneuria L 1 Predator cn 2.5 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 4 Collector cn 8 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 8 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 10 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 2 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 20 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Eukiefferiella Eukiefferiella L 1 Collector sp 6.1 Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Glossosoma Glossosoma L 2 Scraper cn 0.01 Insecta Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia Hemerodromia L 2 Predator sp, bu 7.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae not identified Heptageniidae L 1 Scraper cn 2.6 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 5 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperla Isoperla L 2 Predator cn, sp 2.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 1 Scraper cn 3 Insecta Hemiptera Veliidae Microvelia Microvelia A 1 Predator SK 6 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 2 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus L 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 22 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Coleoptera Psephenidae Psephenus Psephenus L 7 Scraper cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium Simulium L 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis A 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 2 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 10 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 1 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 3 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/28/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 03-104-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acerpenna Acerpenna larva 1 Collector sw, cn 2.6 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha larva 1 Collector cn 8 Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx Calopteryx larva 1 Predator cb 8.3 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche larva 9 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura larva 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura pupa 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius larva 1 Shredder 0 7.7 Turbellaria Tricladida Dugesiidae not identified Dugesiidae adult 1 0 0 na Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Enchytraeidae not identified Enchytraeidae adult 1 Collector bu 9.1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella larva 25 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Eukiefferiella Eukiefferiella larva 1 Collector sp 6.1 Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Glossosoma Glossosoma larva 2 Scraper cn 0.01 Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae not identified Glossosomatidae pupa 1 Scraper cn 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae not identified Heptageniidae larva 1 Scraper cn 2.6 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche larva 7 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae not identified Hydropsychidae pupa 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes larva 6 Filterer cn 4.9 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae adult 7 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax larva 4 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus larva 2 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus adult 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius larva 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius adult 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus larva 3 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus larva 1 Collector sp 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum larva 10 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Potthastia Potthastia larva 1 Collector sp 0.01 Insecta Coleoptera Psephenidae Psephenus Psephenus larva 1 Scraper cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella larva 1 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella pupa 1 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis larva 2 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis adult 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stilocladius Stilocladius larva 1 Collector sp 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus larva 1 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis larva 9 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group larva 2 Predator sp 8.2

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/28/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 03-108-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 9 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chaetocladius Chaetocladius L 7 Collector sp 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus L 2 Filterer - 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 2 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 28 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 5 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diamesa Diamesa L 1 Collector sp 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Diplectrona Diplectrona L 3 Filterer cn 2.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 1 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Plecoptera not identified not identified Plecoptera L 1 0 0 2.4 Insecta Trichoptera Psychomyiidae Lype Lype L 1 Scraper cn 4.7 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 19 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parachaetocladius Parachaetocladius L 1 Collector sp 3.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parakiefferiella Parakiefferiella L 2 Collector sp 2.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 4 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus L 1 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella L 1 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stilocladius Stilocladius L 2 Collector sp 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus P 1 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia Thienemannimyia L 1 Predator sp 6.7 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Tipula Tipula L 1 Shredder bu 6.7

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/28/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 03-113-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 1 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chaetocladius Chaetocladius L 4 Collector sp 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 3 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 1 Shredder 0 7.7 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Lumbricidae not identified Lumbricidae A 1 Collector 0 10 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Eukiefferiella Eukiefferiella L 1 Collector sp 6.1 Insecta Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia Hemerodromia L 1 Predator sp, bu 7.9 Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae not identified Dytiscidae L 1 Predator sw, dv 5.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae not identified Leptophlebiidae L 1 Collector sw, cn 1.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra Micropsectra L 6 Collector cb, sp 2.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra Micropsectra P 1 Collector cb, sp 2.1 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 50 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Orthocladiinae P 1 Collector 0 7.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus P 1 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paraphaenocladius Paraphaenocladius L 4 Collector sp 4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 6 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Enopla Hoplonemertea TetrastemmatidaeProstoma Prostoma A 1 Predator 0 7.3 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Pseudolimnophila Pseudolimnophila L 2 Predator bu 2.8 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus L 2 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemanniella Thienemanniella L 1 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Tipula Tipula L 1 Shredder bu 6.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Zavrelimyia Zavrelimyia L 1 Predator sp 5.3

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/28/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 03-123-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella Acentrella L 1 Collector sw, cn 4.9 Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae Acroneuria Acroneuria L 1 Predator cn 2.5 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 5 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Coleoptera Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus Anchytarsus L 1 Shredder cn 3.1 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 3 Collector cn 8 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 2 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 1 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalus Corydalus L 1 Predator cn, cb 1.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 2 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura P 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 6 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 2 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Diphetor Diphetor L 1 Collector sw, cn 2.3 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Diplectrona Diplectrona L 3 Filterer cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia Dubiraphia A 2 Scraper cn, cb 5.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 6 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella L 2 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 4 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae not identified Leptophlebiidae L 1 Collector sw, cn 1.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Leucrocuta Leucrocuta L 2 Scraper cn 1.8 Insecta Plecoptera not identified not identified Plecoptera L 8 0 0 2.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 1 Scraper cn 3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes L 1 Filterer cn 4.9 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 8 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 5 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 7 Scraper cn 2.7 Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae not identified Planariidae A 5 Predator sp 8.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 4 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella P 1 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis A 2 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stilocladius Stilocladius L 2 Collector sp 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Tanytarsini P 1 Collector 0 3.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 2 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 4 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia gro Thienemannimyia group L 3 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Tipula Tipula L 1 Shredder bu 6.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 2 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/28/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 03-124-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 2 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 1 Collector cn 8 Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx Calopteryx L 1 Predator cb 8.3 Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Chaetogaster Chaetogaster A 1 0 0 na Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 3 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 2 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Empididae Clinocera Clinocera L 2 Predator cn 7.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 3 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura P 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 6 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 2 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Diplectrona Diplectrona L 4 Filterer cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia Dubiraphia L 2 Scraper cn, cb 5.7 Turbellaria Tricladida Dugesiidae not identified Dugesiidae A 1 0 0 na Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae not identified Elmidae A 1 Collector cn 4.8 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Enchytraeidae not identified Enchytraeidae A 1 Collector bu 9.1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 1 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 1 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae not identified Hydropsychidae P 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 2 Scraper cn 3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra Micropsectra L 7 Collector cb, sp 2.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra Micropsectra P 3 Collector cb, sp 2.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes L 1 Filterer cn 4.9 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 18 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 3 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 5 Collector sp 4.6 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPhysidae Physa Physa A 3 Scraper cb 7 Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae not identified Planariidae A 4 Predator sp 8.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 10 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Enopla Hoplonemertea TetrastemmatidaeProstoma Prostoma A 1 Predator 0 7.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus P 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis L 2 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 3 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 1 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/28/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 03-221-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus Ameletus L 1 Collector sw, cb 2.6 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 1 Collector cn 8 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 6 Collector bu 8.5 Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Chaetogaster Chaetogaster A 2 0 0 na Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 5 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Chironominae P 1 Collector 0 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 1 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus L 1 Predator sp, bu 7.6 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 14 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella L 1 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Insecta Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia Hemerodromia L 1 Predator sp, bu 7.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae not identified Heptageniidae L 1 Scraper cn 2.6 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Hexatoma Hexatoma A 1 Predator bu, sp 1.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus L 7 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperla Isoperla L 1 Predator cn, sp 2.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes L 2 Filterer cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Nilotanypus Nilotanypus L 1 Predator sp 6.6 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Paranemoura Paranemoura L 1 0 0 2.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 20 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 14 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus P 2 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella L 5 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella P 1 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis A 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 10 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 3 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 3 Predator sp 8.2

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/28/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 03-301-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 1 Collector cn 8 Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea Caecidotea A 4 Collector sp 2.6 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 6 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 1 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus L 1 Filterer - 6.6 Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula Corbicula A 1 Filterer bu 6 Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx Crangonyx A 20 Collector sp 6.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 12 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia Dubiraphia A 1 Scraper cn, cb 5.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 1 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Ferrissia Ferrissia A 1 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Haploperla Haploperla L 1 Predator cn 1.6 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae not identified Heptageniidae L 1 Scraper cn 2.6 Malacostraca Amphipoda Hyalellidae Hyalella Hyalella A 1 Shredder sp 4.2 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 3 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 4 Scraper cn 3 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Macronychus Macronychus L 1 Scraper cn 6.8 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes L 1 Filterer cn 4.9 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 10 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Nanocladius Nanocladius L 2 Collector sp 7.6 Insecta Diptera Empididae Neoplasta Neoplasta L 1 Predator 0 na Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus L 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Orthocladiinae L 1 Collector 0 7.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Orthocladiinae P 1 Collector 0 7.6 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 4 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parakiefferiella Parakiefferiella L 1 Collector sp 2.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 1 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Paranemoura Paranemoura L 3 0 0 2.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 9 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 5 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis L 5 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 3 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 2 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Tipulidae not identified Tipulidae P 1 Predator bu, sp 4.8 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 1 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia P 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 03-301-R-2017QC

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acerpenna Acerpenna L 1 Collector sw, cn 2.6 Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae Acroneuria Acroneuria L 1 Predator cn 2.5 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 1 Collector cn 8 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Brillia Brillia L 1 Shredder bu, sp 7.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chaetocladius Chaetocladius L 1 Collector sp 7 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 12 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 2 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura P 1 Collector sp 4.1 Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx Crangonyx A 6 Collector sp 6.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 11 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diamesa Diamesa L 1 Collector sp 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diplocladius Diplocladius L 1 Collector sp 5.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 3 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae not identified Ceratopogonidae L 1 Predator sp, bu 3.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus L 1 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 1 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae Isonychia Isonychia L 2 Filterer sw, cn 2.5 Insecta Plecoptera not identified not identified Plecoptera L 3 0 0 2.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 6 Scraper cn 3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes L 3 Filterer cn 4.9 Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae Mystacides Mystacides L 1 Collector sp, cb 4.1 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 16 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Nanocladius Nanocladius L 1 Collector sp 7.6 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus L 2 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Orthocladiinae P 1 Collector 0 7.6 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 1 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae not identified Philopotamidae P 1 Filterer cn 2.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 10 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Coleoptera Psephenidae Psephenus Psephenus L 1 Scraper cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus L 1 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 4 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium Simulium L 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella L 2 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stilocladius Stilocladius L 1 Collector sp 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 3 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus P 1 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 4 Collector 0 na Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae U 1 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 1 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia P 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Cattail Creek BIBI_03.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 03-321-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Ablabesmyia Ablabesmyia L 2 Predator sp 8.1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella Acentrella L 1 Collector sw, cn 4.9 Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Chaetogaster Chaetogaster A 1 0 0 na Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 5 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 1 Filterer cn 4.4 Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx Crangonyx A 6 Collector sp 6.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 8 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia Dubiraphia A 1 Scraper cn, cb 5.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 2 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella L 1 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus L 2 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus P 1 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 4 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae not identified Hydropsychidae P 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila Hydroptila L 1 Scraper cn 6 Insecta Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae Isonychia Isonychia L 1 Filterer sw, cn 2.5 Insecta Plecoptera not identified not identified Plecoptera L 1 0 0 2.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 10 Scraper cn 3 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 15 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Nanocladius Nanocladius L 1 Collector sp 7.6 not identified not identified not identified not identified Nemata A 1 0 0 na Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parakiefferiella Parakiefferiella L 1 Collector sp 2.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus P 4 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus L 2 Collector sp 7.7 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPhysidae Physa Physa A 1 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 8 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Potthastia Potthastia L 2 Collector sp 0.01 Enopla Hoplonemertea Tetrastemmatidae Prostoma Prostoma A 1 Predator 0 7.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 16 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus P 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium Simulium L 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Bivalvia Veneroida Pisidiidae not identified Sphaeriidae U 1 Filterer bu 6.5 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis A 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stilocladius Stilocladius P 1 Collector sp 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Sympotthastia Sympotthastia L 1 Collector sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Tanytarsini P 1 Collector 0 3.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 6 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 2 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia gro Thienemannimyia group L 1 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae Triaenodes Triaenodes L 1 Shredder sw, cb 5

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Cattail Creek BIBI_03 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Biomonitoring Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/24/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name:

02-201-R- Metric 02-103-R-2017 02-104-R-2017 02-106-R-2017 02-107-R-2017 02-121-F-2017 02-123-F-2017 02-202-R-2017 02-221-F-2017 02-301-F-2017 02-121-F-2017QC 2017 Raw Scores Raw Scores Total Number of Taxa 34 22 32 28 34 28 32 30 25 34 29 Number of EPT Taxa 14 9 15 5 13 9 11 10 9 13 12 Number of Ephemeroptera Taxa 6 4 7 1 1 4 6 5 5 4 2 Percent Intolerant Urban 32.7 54.8 43.9 16.1 62.0 26.0 22.3 25.0 63.6 25.7 52.9 Percent Chironomidae 24.5 21.7 23.5 47.3 17.6 32.0 51.5 27.7 12.1 15.8 21.6 Percent Clingers 51.8 72.2 67.3 26.9 77.8 43.0 62.1 69.6 77.8 63.4 71.6 BIBI Scores BIBI Scores Total Number of Taxa 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Number of EPT Taxa 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 Number of Ephemeroptera Taxa 5 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 3 Percent Intolerant Urban 3 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 Percent Chironomidae 3 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 Percent Clingers 3 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 BIBI Score 4.0 4.0 4.3 2.7 4.3 3.7 4.0 3.7 4.7 4.3 4.3 Narrative Rating Good Good Good Poor Good Fair Good Fair Good Good Good

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/24/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name: 02-103-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella Acentrella L 1 Collector sw, cn 4.9 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 8 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 1 Collector cn 8 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis Baetis L 1 Collector sw, cb, cn 3.9 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 1 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 1 Shredder 0 7.7 Turbellaria Tricladida Dugesiidae Cura Cura A 2 0 sp 6.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Diphetor Diphetor L 1 Collector sw, cn 2.3 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes Dolophilodes L 5 Filterer cn 1.7 Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae not identified Dytiscidae L 1 Predator sw, dv 5.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 4 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 1 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperla Isoperla L 4 Predator cn, sp 2.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae not identified Leptophlebiidae L 1 Collector sw, cn 1.7 Insecta Plecoptera Leuctridae not identified Leuctridae L 3 Shredder sp, cn 0.8 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 1 Scraper cn 3 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 35 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Empididae Neoplasta Neoplasta L 1 Predator 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladius Orthocladius L 1 Collector sp, bu 9.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 3 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 2 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus L 1 Collector sp 7.7 Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae not identified Perlidae L 2 Predator cn 2.2 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPhysidae Physa Physa A 1 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 11 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Pseudolimnophila Pseudolimnophila L 1 Predator bu 2.8 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella L 1 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis A 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 2 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 6 Predator sp 8.2 Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae not identified Tubificidae U 1 Collector cn 8.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/24/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name: 02-104-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 24 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 3 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura P 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 3 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Diphetor Diphetor L 1 Collector sw, cn 2.3 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Diplectrona Diplectrona L 6 Filterer cn 2.7 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes Dolophilodes L 1 Filterer cn 1.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 4 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella L 9 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Heleniella Heleniella L 1 Predator sp 0.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae not identified Leptophlebiidae L 18 Collector sw, cn 1.7 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 6 Collector bu 8.5 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae U 1 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 4 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 4 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 2 Collector sp 4.6 Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae not identified Planariidae U 7 Predator sp 8.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 2 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 2 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella L 2 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 9 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 3 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Hemiptera Veliidae not identified Veliidae I 2 0 0 6

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/24/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name: 02-106-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella Acentrella L 7 Collector sw, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus Ameletus L 2 Collector sw, cb 2.6 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 10 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis Baetis L 1 Collector sw, cb, cn 3.9 Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Chaetogaster Chaetogaster A 1 0 0 na Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 2 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 1 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 2 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 4 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 1 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes Dolophilodes L 8 Filterer cn 1.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia Dubiraphia A 1 Scraper cn, cb 5.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Epeorus Epeorus L 1 Scraper cn 1.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 13 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella L 2 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Gastropoda BasommatophoraAncylidae Ferrissia Ferrissia A 2 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Odonata Gomphidae not identified Gomphidae L 2 Predator bu 2.2 Insecta Coleoptera Dryopidae Helichus Helichus A 1 Scraper cn 6.4 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae not identified Hydropsychidae P 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperla Isoperla L 1 Predator cn, sp 2.4 Oligochaeta Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae not identified Lumbriculidae I 1 Collector bu 6.6 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 7 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae not identified Perlidae L 2 Predator cn 2.2 Insecta Trichoptera PolycentropodidaePolycentropus Polycentropus L 1 Filterer cn 1.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 2 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 3 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus P 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila Rhyacophila L 1 Predator cn 2.1 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae not identified Simuliidae P 1 Filterer cn 3.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis A 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 3 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 3 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 5 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 1 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia P 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/24/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name: 02-107-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chaetocladius Chaetocladius L 4 Collector sp 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Chironominae L 1 Collector 0 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 3 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 3 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Diplectrona Diplectrona L 2 Filterer cn 2.7 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes Dolophilodes L 1 Filterer cn 1.7 Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae not identified Dytiscidae L 1 Predator sw, dv 5.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 1 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus L 1 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Plecoptera Leuctridae not identified Leuctridae L 1 Shredder sp, cn 0.8 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra Micropsectra L 4 Collector cb, sp 2.1 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 30 Collector bu 8.5 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae U 6 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Natarsia Natarsia L 1 Predator sp 6.6 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus A 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 2 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paraphaenocladius Paraphaenocladius L 1 Collector sp 4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratendipes Paratendipes L 2 Collector bu 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 9 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Potthastia Potthastia L 1 Collector sp 0.01 Enopla Hoplonemertea Tetrastemmatidae Prostoma Prostoma A 1 Predator 0 7.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus L 1 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellina Stempellina L 1 Collector cb 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 1 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 4 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 2 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Zavrelimyia Zavrelimyia L 2 Predator sp 5.3

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/24/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name: 02-121-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella Acentrella L 1 Collector sw, cn 4.9 Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Agapetus Agapetus L 1 Scraper cn 2 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 25 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Coleoptera Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus Anchytarsus L 1 Shredder cn 3.1 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 1 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Chironomidae L 1 0 0 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 2 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 1 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes L 1 Collector bu 9 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Diplectrona Diplectrona L 4 Filterer cn 2.7 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes Dolophilodes L 9 Filterer cn 1.7 Insecta Coleoptera Psephenidae Ectopria Ectopria L 1 Scraper cn 2.2 Insecta Diptera Empididae not identified Empididae P 1 Predator sp, bu 7.5 Gastropoda BasommatophoraAncylidae Ferrissia Ferrissia A 1 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Odonata Gomphidae not identified Gomphidae L 1 Predator bu 2.2 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 2 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila Hydroptila L 1 Scraper cn 6 Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperla Isoperla L 6 Predator cn, sp 2.4 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 8 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 6 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus L 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 3 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae not identified Perlidae L 1 Predator cn 2.2 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae not identified Philopotamidae P 1 Filterer cn 2.6 Insecta Plecoptera not identified not identified Plecoptera L 4 0 0 2.4 Insecta Trichoptera Polycentropodida Polycentropus Polycentropus L 2 Filterer cn 1.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 4 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Potthastia Potthastia L 1 Collector sp 0.01 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 2 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium Simulium L 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis L 2 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis A 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 6 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Tipula Tipula L 1 Shredder bu 6.7 Turbellaria not identified not identified not identified Turbellaria A 1 Predator sp 4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/24/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name: 02-123-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 4 Shredder sp, cn 3 Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea Caecidotea A 1 Collector sp 2.6 Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx Calopteryx L 2 Predator cb 8.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 2 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 1 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diplocladius Diplocladius L 1 Collector sp 5.9 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes Dolophilodes L 5 Filterer cn 1.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Epeorus Epeorus L 2 Scraper cn 1.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 2 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella L 10 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae not identified Leptophlebiidae L 1 Collector sw, cn 1.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra Micropsectra L 1 Collector cb, sp 2.1 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 22 Collector bu 8.5 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae U 5 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Plecoptera not identified not identified Plecoptera L 7 0 0 2.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 9 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Trichoptera Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche Pycnopsyche L 1 Shredder sp, cb, cn 3.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus L 1 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila Rhyacophila L 1 Predator cn 2.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Sublettea Sublettea L 1 Collector - 10 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Tanytarsini P 1 Collector 0 3.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 5 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemanniella Thienemanniella L 1 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 4 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Tipula Tipula L 1 Shredder bu 6.7 Turbellaria not identified not identified not identified Turbellaria A 2 Predator sp 4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 3 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Zavrelimyia Zavrelimyia L 1 Predator sp 5.3

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/25/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name: 02-201-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tribe (HIDE Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class ME!) Value4

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Pentaneurini Ablabesmyia Ablabesmyia L 1 Predator sp 8.1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae 0 Acentrella Acentrella L 1 Collector sw, cn 4.9 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae 0 Amphinemura Amphinemura L 4 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae 0 Ancyronyx Ancyronyx L 1 Scraper cn, sp 7.8 Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae 0 not identified Ceratopogonidae L 1 Predator sp, bu 3.6 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 0 Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 8 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 0 Corynoneura Corynoneura L 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 0 Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 7 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 0 Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 2 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomini DemicryptochironomuDemicryptochironomus L 1 Collector bu 2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomini Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes L 2 Collector bu 9 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae 0 Dubiraphia Dubiraphia A 1 Scraper cn, cb 5.7 Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae 0 not identified Dytiscidae L 1 Predator sw, dv 5.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae 0 Ephemerella Ephemerella L 6 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae 0 Eurylophella Eurylophella L 1 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 0 Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 3 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae 0 Isonychia Isonychia L 2 Filterer sw, cn 2.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae 0 not identified Leptophlebiidae L 1 Collector sw, cn 1.7 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPlanorbidae 0 Menetus Menetus A 1 Scraper cb 7.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomini Microtendipes Microtendipes L 5 Filterer cn 4.9 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae 0 not identified Naididae A 10 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 0 Nanocladius Nanocladius L 1 Collector sp 7.6 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae 0 Oulimnius Oulimnius L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae 0 Oulimnius Oulimnius A 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsini Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus L 1 Collector sp 7.7 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae 0 not identified Philopotamidae L 2 Filterer cn 2.6 Insecta Plecoptera not identified 0 not identified Plecoptera L 2 0 0 2.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomini Polypedilum Polypedilum L 11 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae 0 Procloeon Procloeon L 2 Collector 0 2.3 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Prosimuliini Prosimulium Prosimulium L 1 Filterer cn 2.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 0 Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus L 1 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsini Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 5 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 0 not identified Tanypodinae P 2 Predator 0 7.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsini Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 9 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsini Tanytarsus Tanytarsus P 1 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 0 Thienemannimyia gro Thienemannimyia group L 3 Predator sp 8.2

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/25/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name: 02-202-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Agapetus Agapetus larva 1 Scraper cn 2 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura larva 7 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha larva 2 Collector cn 8 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche larva 5 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra larva 17 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalus Corydalus larva 1 Predator cn, cb 1.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius larva 2 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella larva 7 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Eukiefferiella Eukiefferiella larva 1 Collector sp 6.1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella larva 1 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Gastropoda BasommatophoraAncylidae Ferrissia Ferrissia adult 2 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Odonata Gomphidae not identified Gomphidae larva 1 Predator bu 2.2 Insecta Coleoptera Dryopidae Helichus Helichus adult 1 Scraper cn 6.4 Insecta Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia Hemerodromia larva 1 Predator sp, bu 7.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae not identified Heptageniidae larva 3 Scraper cn 2.6 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche larva 2 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Leucrocuta Leucrocuta larva 1 Scraper cn 1.8 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium larva 2 Scraper cn 3 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Microcylloepus Microcylloepus larva 3 Collector 0 4.8 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes larva 1 Filterer cn 4.9 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae adult 14 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius larva 4 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus larva 2 Collector sp 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum larva 18 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Prosimulium Prosimulium larva 1 Filterer cn 2.4 Insecta Coleoptera Psephenidae Psephenus Psephenus larva 1 Scraper cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus larva 1 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus larva 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus larva 2 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis larva 4 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group larva 3 Predator sp 8.2

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/25/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name: 02-221-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella Acentrella L 2 Collector sw, cn 4.9 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 40 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis Baetis L 1 Collector sw, cb, cn 3.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chaetocladius Chaetocladius L 3 Collector sp 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 1 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Diphetor Diphetor L 1 Collector sw, cn 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Epeorus Epeorus L 2 Scraper cn 1.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 5 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Coleoptera Dryopidae Helichus Helichus A 2 Scraper cn 6.4 Insecta Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia Hemerodromia L 1 Predator sp, bu 7.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae not identified Heptageniidae L 2 Scraper cn 2.6 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 1 Filterer cn 7.5 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 11 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 9 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus L 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 1 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paraphaenocladius Paraphaenocladius L 1 Collector sp 4 Insecta Plecoptera not identified not identified Plecoptera L 2 0 0 2.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 1 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Coleoptera Psephenidae Psephenus Psephenus L 3 Scraper cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Pseudorthocladius Pseudorthocladius L 1 Collector sp 6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella L 1 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis L 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis A 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 2 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 1 Predator sp 8.2

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/25/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name: 02-301-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella Acentrella L 22 Collector sw, cn 4.9 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 10 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx Calopteryx L 4 Predator cb 8.3 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 3 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalus Corydalus L 1 Predator cn, cb 1.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 3 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes Dolophilodes L 3 Filterer cn 1.7 Insecta Diptera Empididae not identified Empididae P 1 Predator sp, bu 7.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 1 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae not identified Baetidae L 1 Collector sw, cn 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella L 3 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Gastropoda BasommatophoraAncylidae Ferrissia Ferrissia A 1 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae not identified Glossosomatidae L 1 Scraper cn 1 Insecta Odonata Gomphidae not identified Gomphidae L 1 Predator bu 2.2 Insecta Coleoptera Dryopidae Helichus Helichus A 2 Scraper cn 6.4 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 1 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae not identified Leptoceridae L 1 Collector 0 4.1 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Macronychus Macronychus L 1 Scraper cn 6.8 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 17 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus A 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Plecoptera not identified not identified Plecoptera L 1 0 0 2.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 2 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Potthastia Potthastia L 2 Collector sp 0.01 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Prosimulium Prosimulium L 3 Filterer cn 2.4 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium Simulium L 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella L 1 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella P 1 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis A 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stilocladius Stilocladius L 1 Collector sp 6.6 Insecta Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae Taeniopteryx Taeniopteryx L 1 Shredder sp, cn 4.8 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 2 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 1 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae not identified Hydroptilidae L 1 0 0 4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 3 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Upper Brighton BIBI_02.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/28/2017 Checked date: 8/4/2017 Site Name: 02-121-F-2017QC

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura larva 9 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Coleoptera Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus Anchytarsus larva 1 Shredder cn 3.1 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche larva 1 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius larva 1 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Diplectrona Diplectrona larva 3 Filterer cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diplocladius Diplocladius larva 1 Collector sp 5.9 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes Dolophilodes larva 8 Filterer cn 1.7 Insecta Coleoptera Psephenidae Ectopria Ectopria larva 1 Scraper cn 2.2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae not identified Heptageniidae larva 1 Scraper cn 2.6 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche larva 1 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperla Isoperla larva 2 Predator cn, sp 2.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae not identified Baetidae larva 2 Collector sw, cn 2.3 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae adult 19 Collector bu 8.5 not identified not identified not identified not identified Nemata adult 1 0 0 na Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax larva 7 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus larva 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius larva 4 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius adult 9 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Paranemoura Paranemoura larva 1 0 0 2.9 Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae not identified Perlidae larva 1 Predator cn 2.2 Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae not identified Perlodidae larva 2 Predator cn 2.2 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae not identified Philopotamidae larva 1 Filterer cn 2.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum larva 1 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Potthastia Potthastia larva 1 Collector sp 0.01 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Pseudolimnophila Pseudolimnophila larva 1 Predator bu 2.8 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus larva 2 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila Rhyacophila larva 1 Predator cn 2.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella larva 1 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis adult 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus larva 13 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group larva 2 Predator sp 8.2 Turbellaria not identified not identified not identified Turbellaria adult 2 Predator sp 4

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Upper Brighton BIBI_02 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Biomonitoring Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name:

05-111-R- 05-122-F- 05-301-R- Metric 05-103-R-2017 05-105-R-2017 05-106-R-2017 05-108-R-2017 05-121-F-2017 05-122-F-2017QC 05-201-F-2017 05-321-F-2017 2017 2017 2017 Raw Scores Raw Scores Total Number of Taxa 25 22 27 27 24 29 23 32 32 33 32 Number of EPT Taxa 11 3 9 10 5 12 10 9 7 10 15 Number of Ephemeroptera Taxa 6 3 5 3 1 7 7 5 3 4 7 Percent Intolerant Urban 20.4 3.1 17.6 25.0 16.8 25.2 19.3 27.1 3.3 42.2 19.6 Percent Chironomidae 15.7 63.5 54.9 47.9 62.4 56.5 57.8 46.7 34.4 19.0 41.2 Percent Clingers 79.6 15.6 56.9 62.5 26.7 39.1 53.2 32.7 55.7 64.7 41.2 BIBI Scores BIBI Scores Total Number of Taxa 5 3 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 Number of EPT Taxa 5 1 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 Number of Ephemeroptera Taxa 5 3 5 3 1 5 5 5 3 5 5 Percent Intolerant Urban 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 Percent Chironomidae 5 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 Percent Clingers 5 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 BIBI Score 4.67 1.67 3.67 3.33 2.33 4.00 3.33 3.67 3.00 4.00 4.00 Narrative Rating Good Very Poor Fair Fair Poor Good Fair Fair Fair Good Good

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 05-103-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acerpenna Acerpenna L 1 Collector sw, cn 2.6 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 1 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 2 Collector cn 8 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 20 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 6 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura P 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 5 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 1 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 7 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella L 3 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 23 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae not identified Leptophlebiidae L 1 Collector sw, cn 1.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 4 Scraper cn 3 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 2 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 3 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus L 2 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus L 1 Collector sp 7.7 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae not identified Philopotamidae P 1 Filterer cn 2.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 4 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Enopla Hoplonemertea TetrastemmatidaeProstoma Prostoma A 1 Predator 0 7.3 Insecta Coleoptera Psephenidae Psephenus Psephenus L 1 Scraper cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 2 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 1 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 9 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemanniella Thienemanniella P 1 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia P 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 05-105-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 1 Collector cn 8 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Brillia Brillia L 1 Shredder bu, sp 7.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis Caenis L 1 Collector sp 2.1 Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Chaetogaster Chaetogaster A 5 0 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 2 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 13 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae not identified Elmidae L 1 Collector cn 4.8 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Enchytraeidae not identified Enchytraeidae A 1 Collector bu 9.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus L 29 Scraper sp 7.2 Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae Limnodrilus Limnodrilus A 1 Collector cn 8.6 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 1 Scraper cn 3 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPlanorbidae Menetus Menetus A 2 Scraper cb 7.6 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 17 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia Paraleptophlebia L 1 Collector sw, cn, sp 2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus L 1 Collector sp 7.7 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPhysidae Physa Physa A 2 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 4 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella Stempellinella L 2 Collector cb, sp, cn 4.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Tanypodinae P 1 Predator 0 7.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 4 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tribelos Tribelos L 3 Collector bu 7 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae U 2 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 05-106-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella Acentrella L 1 Collector sw, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acerpenna Acerpenna L 3 Collector sw, cn 2.6 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 1 Collector cn 8 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 6 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 5 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Empididae Clinocera Clinocera L 2 Predator cn 7.4 Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx Crangonyx A 1 Collector sp 6.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 21 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 4 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diamesa Diamesa L 3 Collector sp 8.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 7 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae not identified Heptageniidae L 5 Scraper cn 2.6 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 3 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae not identified Hydropsychidae P 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes L 1 Filterer cn 4.9 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 3 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 1 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus L 2 Collector sp 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus P 1 Collector sp 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 14 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Prosimulium Prosimulium L 1 Filterer cn 2.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus L 1 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 2 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis A 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 3 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 4 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 2 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 05-108-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella Acentrella L 2 Collector sw, cn 4.9 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 4 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 3 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Chironominae P 1 Collector 0 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 2 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Diploperla Diploperla L 1 Predator cn 2.2 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes Dolophilodes L 3 Filterer cn 1.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 9 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Eukiefferiella Eukiefferiella L 3 Collector sp 6.1 Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae not identified Glossosomatidae P 1 Scraper cn 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae not identified Heptageniidae L 3 Scraper cn 2.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus L 1 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 3 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 1 Scraper cn 3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra Micropsectra L 2 Collector cb, sp 2.1 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 11 Collector bu 8.5 not identified not identified not identified not identified Nemata A 1 0 0 na Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus L 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 2 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae not identified Philopotamidae P 2 Filterer cn 2.6 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPhysidae Physa Physa A 1 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 22 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum P 2 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Potthastia Potthastia L 1 Collector sp 0.01 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus L 1 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 1 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 3 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia gro Thienemannimyia group L 1 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 5 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 05-111-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Ablabesmyia Ablabesmyia L 1 Predator sp 8.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chaetocladius Chaetocladius L 9 Collector sp 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chaetocladius Chaetocladius p 1 Collector sp 7 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 1 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 2 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 9 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diamesa Diamesa L 2 Collector sp 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Diplectrona Diplectrona L 5 Filterer cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diplocladius Diplocladius L 1 Collector sp 5.9 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes Dolophilodes L 1 Filterer cn 1.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 2 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus L 2 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Plecoptera not identified not identified Plecoptera L 3 0 0 2.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra Micropsectra L 6 Collector cb, sp 2.1 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 20 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 3 Collector sp 4.6 Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae not identified Planariidae A 2 Predator sp 8.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 12 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 2 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium Simulium L 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Sympotthastia Sympotthastia L 7 Collector sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 3 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Tipula Tipula L 2 Shredder bu 6.7 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae U 1 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 2 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Zavrelimyia Zavrelimyia L 1 Predator sp 5.3

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 05-121-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella Acentrella L 1 Collector sw, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acerpenna Acerpenna L 2 Collector sw, cn 2.6 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus Ameletus L 2 Collector sw, cb 2.6 Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Chaetogaster Chaetogaster A 2 0 0 na Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 3 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 5 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Chironominae P 1 Collector 0 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthoclad Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 20 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthoclad Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 3 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diamesa Diamesa L 3 Collector sp 8.5 Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae Eccoptura Eccoptura L 1 Predator cn 0.6 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 19 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella L 1 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus L 11 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus P 3 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 1 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 2 Scraper cn 3 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPlanorbidae Menetus Menetus A 2 Scraper cb 7.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes L 1 Filterer cn 4.9 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 6 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 2 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus L 3 Collector sp 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus P 1 Collector sp 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 5 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Potthastia Potthastia L 1 Collector sp 0.01 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus L 1 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 2 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Tanytarsini P 1 Collector 0 3.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 1 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia groThienemannimyia group L 2 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tribelos Tribelos L 1 Collector bu 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 2 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia P 2 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 05-122-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acerpenna Acerpenna L 2 Collector sw, cn 2.6 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 3 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 12 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 4 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus L 1 Filterer - 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura P 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 16 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 8 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diamesa Diamesa L 4 Collector sp 8.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Dolophilodes Dolophilodes L 1 Filterer cn 1.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 11 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella L 1 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus L 1 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae not identified Leptophlebiidae L 1 Collector sw, cn 1.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Leucrocuta Leucrocuta L 1 Scraper cn 1.8 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 2 Scraper cn 3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes L 2 Filterer cn 4.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 2 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae not identified Philopotamidae P 1 Filterer cn 2.6 Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physa Physa A 4 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 20 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Potthastia Potthastia L 2 Collector sp 0.01 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 3 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 1 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 2 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia P 2 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 05-122-F-2017QC

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acerpenna Acerpenna L 1 Collector sw, cn 2.6 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 1 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Ancyronyx Ancyronyx A 1 Scraper cn, sp 7.8 Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae not identified Asellidae U 1 0 0 3.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chaetocladius Chaetocladius L 5 Collector sp 7 Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Chaetogaster Chaetogaster A 1 0 0 na Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 2 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 1 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Chironominae L 1 Collector 0 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus L 1 Filterer - 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 4 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura P 1 Collector sp 4.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 3 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diplocladius Diplocladius L 1 Collector sp 5.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 3 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Heterotrissocladius Heterotrissocladius L 1 Collector sp, bu 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Leucrocuta Leucrocuta L 2 Scraper cn 1.8 Insecta Plecoptera not identified not identified Plecoptera L 12 0 0 2.4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 1 Scraper cn 3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra Micropsectra L 4 Collector cb, sp 2.1 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 22 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Orthocladiinae L 1 Collector 0 7.6 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 2 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 3 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus L 2 Collector sp 7.7 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae not identified Philopotamidae L 1 Filterer cn 2.6 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPhysidae Physa Physa A 1 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 15 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Prosimulium Prosimulium L 1 Filterer cn 2.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus L 1 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium Simulium L 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae not identified Tanytarsini P 1 Collector 0 3.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 2 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 3 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 2 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia P 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 05-201-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Epeorus Epeorus L 1 Scraper cn 1.7 Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Chaetogaster Chaetogaster A 1 0 0 na Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 22 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 6 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura Corynoneura L 1 Collector sp 4.1 Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx Crangonyx A 1 Collector sp 6.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 6 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 2 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diamesa Diamesa L 1 Collector sp 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes L 2 Collector bu 9 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia Dubiraphia A 1 Scraper cn, cb 5.7 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 1 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Eukiefferiella Eukiefferiella L 2 Collector sp 6.1 Gastropoda BasommatophoraAncylidae Ferrissia Ferrissia A 2 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia Hemerodromia L 1 Predator sp, bu 7.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus L 1 Scraper sp 7.2 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 16 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae not identified Hydropsychidae P 1 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila Hydroptila L 4 Scraper cn 6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra Micropsectra L 1 Collector cb, sp 2.1 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 12 Collector bu 8.5 not identified not identified not identified not identified Nemata A 2 0 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Pagastia Pagastia P 1 Collector - 6.6 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae not identified Philopotamidae P 1 Filterer cn 2.6 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPhysidae Physa Physa A 2 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 4 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 4 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis L 1 Scraper cn 7.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stilocladius Stilocladius L 3 Collector sp 6.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Sympotthastia Sympotthastia L 1 Collector sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 6 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 4 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group L 3 Predator sp 8.2 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae not identified Tipulidae P 1 Predator bu, sp 4.8 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 3 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia P 1 Collector sp 5.1

1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 05-301-R-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 8 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae not identified Baetidae L 1 Collector sw, cn 2.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Brillia Brillia L 1 Shredder bu, sp 7.4 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chaetocladius Chaetocladius L 1 Collector sp 7 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 16 Filterer cn 6.5 Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra Chimarra L 4 Filterer cn 4.4 Insecta Odonata Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster Cordulegaster L 1 Predator bu 2.4 Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx Crangonyx A 1 Collector sp 6.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthoclad Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 6 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Eukiefferiella Eukiefferiella L 1 Collector sp 6.1 Gastropoda BasommatophoraAncylidae Ferrissia Ferrissia A 1 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 2 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae Isonychia Isonychia L 19 Filterer sw, cn 2.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Limnophyes Limnophyes L 1 Collector sp 8.6 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium Maccaffertium L 8 Scraper cn 3 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 8 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus L 6 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius A 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius L 1 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus L 1 Collector sp 4.6 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Paranemoura Paranemoura L 8 0 0 2.9 Gastropoda BasommatophoraPhysidae Physa Physa A 1 Scraper cb 7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum Polypedilum L 3 Shredder cb, cn 6.3 Enopla Hoplonemertea TetrastemmatidaeProstoma Prostoma A 1 Predator 0 7.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus L 1 Collector sp 6.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 1 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium Simulium L 2 Filterer cn 5.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Sublettea Sublettea L 1 Collector - 10 Insecta Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae Taenionema Taenionema L 2 Scraper sp,cn 2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 1 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 1 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemanniella Thienemanniella L 1 Collector sp 5.1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia groThienemannimyia group L 1 Predator sp 8.2 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae U 2 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia Tvetenia L 2 Collector sp 5.1 1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Project Number: 16158563.28 Lower Brighton BIBI_05.xlsx Prepared by: BC Checked by: CRH Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/31/2017 Checked date: 8/7/2017 Site Name: 05-321-F-2017

Subphylum/ Tolerance Order Family Genus Final ID Note1 # of Org FFG2 Habit3 Class Value4

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Ablabesmyia Ablabesmyia L 1 Predator sp 8.1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acerpenna Acerpenna L 1 Collector sw, cn 2.6 Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Agapetus Agapetus L 1 Scraper cn 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus Ameletus L 2 Collector sw, cb 2.6 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemura Amphinemura L 2 Shredder sp, cn 3 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Ancyronyx Ancyronyx L 1 Scraper cn, sp 7.8 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha Antocha L 2 Collector cn 8 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche L 5 Filterer cn 6.5 Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx Crangonyx A 3 Collector sp 6.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius L 20 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladi Cricotopus/Orthocladius P 1 Shredder 0 7.7 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Dicranota Dicranota L 1 Predator sp, bu 1.1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Drunella Drunella L 1 Scraper cn, sp 1.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella Ephemerella L 2 Collector cn, sw 2.3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella Eurylophella L 1 Scraper cn, sp 4.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche L 1 Filterer cn 7.5 Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila Hydroptila L 1 Scraper cn 6 Insecta Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae Isonychia Isonychia L 1 Filterer sw, cn 2.5 Insecta Coleoptera not identified not identified Coleoptera L 1 0 0 4.1 Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae Mallochohelea Mallochohelea L 1 Predator bu 3.6 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes Microtendipes L 8 Filterer cn 4.9 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae A 19 Collector bu 8.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Nanocladius Nanocladius L 1 Collector sp 7.6 not identified not identified not identified not identified Nemata A 1 0 0 na Insecta Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax Neophylax L 4 Scraper cn 2.7 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus A 1 Scraper cn 5.4 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Paranemoura Paranemoura L 3 0 0 2.9 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra L 1 Collector cn 8.7 Insecta Plecoptera Pteronarcyidae not identified Pteronarcyidae L 1 0 0 2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus L 3 Filterer cn 7.2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus L 4 Filterer cb, cn 4.9 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Teloganopsis Teloganopsis L 1 Collector 0 na Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia gro Thienemannimyia group L 1 Predator sp 8.2 1 Life Stage, I - Immature, P- Pupa, A - Adult, U - Undetermined; 2 Functional Feeding Group; 3 Primary habit or form of locomotion, includes bu - burrower, cn - clinger, cb - climber, sk - skater, sp - sprawler, sw - swimmer; 4 Tolerance Values, based on Hilsenhoff, modified for Maryland. An entry of "0" indicates information for the particular taxa was not available.

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Biological\Lower Brighton BIBI_05 Appendix D: Habitat Assessment Data Project Name: Howard County Countywide Bioassessement Project Number: 1615856328 RBP_High_Gradient_v1.xlsx Prepared by: CRH Checked by: BC Version: 1 Prepared date: 7/6/2017 Checked date: 7/19/2017 Site Name:

Riparian Riparian Total RBP Epifaunal Velocity/ Channel Bank Bank Vegetative Vegetative Sample Embedded- Sediment Channel Frequency Vegetative Vegetative Site ID Habitat RBP Score RBP Rating Substrate/ Depth Flow Stability - Stability - Protection - Protection - Date ness Deposition Alteration of Rifles Zone Width - Zone Width - Score Cover Regime Status Left Right Left Right Left Right Upper Brighton Dam 02-103-R-2017 4/12/2017 165 82.5 Supporting 14 18 17 16 16 20 14 8 8 8 6 10 10 02-104-R-2017 4/14/2017 131 65.5 Partially Supporting 10 12 9 8 14 20 13 6 7 6 6 10 10 02-106-R-2017 4/12/2017 141 70.5 Partially Supporting 13 12 12 13 13 20 13 7 4 7 7 10 10 02-107-R-2017 4/13/2017 106 53.0 Not Supporting 6 10 8 8 13 20 5 2 4 5 5 10 10 02-121-F-2017 4/14/2017 134 67.0 Partially Supporting 12 14 11 10 13 20 14 4 5 5 6 10 10 02-121-F-2017 QC 4/14/2017 130 65.0 Partially Supporting 14 14 13 9 13 20 11 4 4 4 4 10 10 02-123-F-2017 4/13/2017 134 67.0 Partially Supporting 15 15 9 12 13 20 15 2 4 6 3 10 10 02-201-R-2017 4/7/2017 131 65.5 Partially Supporting 11 18 17 9 11 20 12 4 3 3 3 10 10 02-202-R-2017 4/7/2017 137 68.5 Partially Supporting 13 17 16 16 16 20 9 3 3 2 2 10 10 02-221-F-2017 4/14/2017 121 60.5 Partially Supporting 10 12 11 8 7 20 15 5 3 6 4 10 10 02-301-F-2017 4/13/2017 126 63.0 Partially Supporting 10 11 16 12 13 20 10 2 5 5 2 10 10 Cattail Creek 03-102-R-2017 3/30/2017 120 60.0 Partially Supporting 11 13 11 10 8 20 10 2 5 5 5 10 10 03-103-R-2017 3/30/2017 124 62.0 Partially Supporting 12 13 11 10 11 20 10 2 5 5 5 10 10 03-104-R-2017 3/30/2017 126 63.0 Partially Supporting 12 12 10 12 8 18 14 4 6 5 5 10 10 03-108-R-2017 4/5/2017 98 49.0 Not Supporting 3 2 7 2 11 20 2 7 8 8 8 10 10 03-113-R-2017 4/7/2017 114 57.0 Not Supporting 6 16 7 15 8 20 9 3 3 7 7 10 3 03-123-F-2017 4/5/2017 163 81.5 Supporting 11 18 13 18 18 20 16 8 7 7 7 10 10 03-124-F-2017 4/5/2017 125 62.5 Partially Supporting 11 10 9 10 15 20 9 5 5 5 6 10 10 03-221-F-2017 3/29/2017 113 56.5 Not Supporting 5 2 11 8 14 20 13 4 4 6 6 10 10 03-301-R-2017 3/29/2017 130 65.0 Partially Supporting 10 14 16 15 13 14 12 4 4 4 4 10 10 03-301-R-2017 QC 3/29/2017 134 67.0 Partially Supporting 10 14 13 15 14 20 13 6 3 3 3 10 10 03-321-F-2017 3/29/2017 129 64.5 Partially Supporting 9 16 13 14 15 20 12 2 2 3 3 10 10 Lower Brighton Dam 05-103-R-2017 3/21/2017 109 54.5 Not Supporting 10 8 9 9 16 15 12 7 7 5 5 3 3 05-105-R-2017 3/21/2017 58 29.0 Not Supporting 4 1 6 5 8 5 0 7 2 5 0 5 10 05-106-R-2017 3/23/2017 121 60.5 Partially Supporting 9 14 11 8 8 20 9 6 6 5 5 10 10 05-108-R-2017 4/12/2017 140 70.0 Partially Supporting 14 15 12 13 9 20 13 4 6 7 7 10 10 05-111-R-2017 3/24/2017 120 60.0 Partially Supporting 6 18 6 8 13 20 13 4 4 4 6 10 8 05-121-F-2017 3/23/2017 114 57.0 Not Supporting 10 15 11 5 6 20 8 5 5 4 5 10 10 05-122-F-2017 3/23/2017 114 57.0 Not Supporting 9 15 11 6 10 20 9 6 2 4 2 10 10 05-122-F-2017 QC 3/23/2017 124 62.0 Partially Supporting 10 15 12 8 9 20 8 4 6 6 6 10 10 05-201-F-2017 3/21/2017 107 53.5 Not Supporting 10 7 12 7 12 20 7 3 3 3 3 10 10 05-301-R-2017 3/24/2017 136 68.0 Partially Supporting 12 17 17 9 14 20 12 4 5 3 3 10 10 05-321-F-2017 3/24/2017 118 59.0 Not Supporting 6 9 16 10 15 20 6 6 4 2 4 10 10

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Habitat\RBP_High_Gradient_v1 Project Name: Howard County Countywide Bioassessement Project Number: 1615856328 PHI_Piedmont_v3_HCcountywide.xlsx Prepared by: CRH Checked by: BC Version: 2 Prepared date: 7/18/2017 Checked date: 7/19/2017 Site Name:

RAW DATA Calculated Value SCORES # Woody Subshed Area Instream Epibenthic Percent Debris/ Remoteness Site (ac)* Habitat Substrate Embeddedness Shading Rootwads Riffle Quality Bank Stability Score PHI PHI Rating Upper Brighton Dam 02-103-R-2017 650.4 13 14 20 80 4 14 13 11 73.1 Partially Degraded 02-104-R-2017 86.0 8 10 45 70 4 7 6 13 55.7 Degraded 02-106-R-2017 1021.1 12 13 40 90 7 13 5 16 71.2 Partially Degraded 02-107-R-2017 129.4 7 6 50 80 2 6 8 10 48.3 Severely Degraded 02-121-F-2017 670.0 10 12 40 70 3 12 0 12 54.1 Degraded 02-121-F-2017 QC 670.0 13 14 40 75 2 14 2 10 58.5 Degraded 02-123-F-2017 460.2 15 15 30 70 13 9 3 8 68.3 Partially Degraded 02-201-R-2017 5526.8 16 11 20 70 13 12 0 11 68.4 Partially Degraded 02-202-R-2017 5337.9 15 13 30 60 11 11 0 6 61.3 Degraded 02-221-F-2017 1127.6 11 10 40 70 2 13 4 20 59.2 Degraded 02-301-F-2017 8834.2 12 10 40 70 5 16 2 11 57.9 Degraded Cattail Creek 03-102-R-2017 1866.2 6 11 30 70 5 12 0 18 56.2 Degraded 03-103-R-2017 1817.5 6 12 30 70 6 11 0 18 57.3 Degraded 03-104-R-2017 1602.1 11 12 30 70 16 12 1 12 66.0 Degraded 03-108-R-2017 94.6 3 3 90 90 2 7 11 2 34.7 Severely Degraded 03-113-R-2017 95.7 4 6 30 80 4 8 0 6 42.0 Severely Degraded 03-123-F-2017 1314.6 10 11 10 90 2 10 13 12 67.3 Partially Degraded 03-124-F-2017 183.8 9 11 50 80 3 11 0 6 47.1 Severely Degraded 03-221-F-2017 2750.7 5 5 90 70 14 5 2 12 44.2 Severely Degraded 03-301-R-2017 17733.5 13 10 30 50 18 9 6 20 69.2 Partially Degraded 03-301-R-2017 QC 17733.5 12 10 30 40 8 8 4 20 61.3 Degraded 03-321-F-2017 17776.7 10 9 30 50 8 9 0 18 56.3 Degraded Lower Brighton Dam 05-103-R-2017 484.3 9 11 60 40 5 10 3 12 51.2 Degraded 05-105-R-2017 2205.4 9 4 100 20 6 1 3 4 26.3 Severely Degraded 05-106-R-2017 1844.7 8 9 30 60 10 10 3 10 57.3 Degraded 05-108-R-2017 1814.8 14 14 30 70 4 15 0 9 60.0 Degraded 05-111-R-2017 899.9 3 6 10 85 4 7 7 4 47.9 Severely Degraded 05-121-F-2017 2105.3 8 10 30 60 12 11 3 13 63.2 Degraded 05-122-F-2017 2108.1 7 9 30 60 1 8 1 10 42.8 Severely Degraded 05-122-F-2017 QC 2108.1 10 10 30 70 4 10 6 10 57.3 Degraded 05-201-F-2017 1234.2 8 10 70 30 9 9 3 11 49.4 Severely Degraded 05-301-R-2017 21542.3 11 12 20 20 12 12 6 18 69.3 Partially Degraded 05-321-F-2017 19394.8 10 6 40 30 8 5 2 21 49.3 Severely Degraded

Score Narrative Rating 81-100 Minimally Degraded 66.0-80.9 Partially Degraded 51.0-65.9 Degraded 0-50.9 Severely Degraded

KCI Technologies, Inc. Natural Resource Management M:\2015\16158563.28\Field\Habitat\PHI_Piedmont_v3_HCcountywide Appendix E: Geomorphologic Data Cross Section- 02-103-R-2017, Riffle, Station 1+19 95.5 95 94.5 94 93.5 93 92.5

Elevation 92 91.5 91 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 13.2 x-section area (ft.sq.) 31.8 W flood prone area (ft) 0.034 Manning's roughness 16.1 width (ft) 2.0 entrenchment ratio 0.8 mean depth (ft) 3.0 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.2 max depth (ft) 2.4 low bank height ratio 1.0 16.6 wetted parimeter (ft) 0.8 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 19.6 width-depth ratio 3.8 velocity (ft/s) B4c 50.3 discharge rate (cfs) 0.75 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 02-103-R-2017 40% Riffle 20% Run 20% Pool 20% Glide

weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles in range 100% 30% 90% 80% 25% 70% 20% 60% 50% 15% 40% 30% 10% 20%

percent finer than finer percent 5% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.7 silt/clay 18% D35 1.3 dispersion 58.8 sand 31% D50 6.9 skewness -0.37 gravel 45% D65 22 cobble 6% D84 44 boulder 0% D95 69 Cross Section- 02-104-R-2017, Riffle, Station 1+28 95.5 95 94.5 94 93.5

Elevation 93 92.5 92 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 3.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 16.7 W flood prone area (ft) 0.032 Manning's roughness 9.4 width (ft) 1.8 entrenchment ratio 0.4 mean depth (ft) 1.9 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 0.7 max depth (ft) 2.7 low bank height ratio 1.2 9.9 wetted parimeter (ft) 0.4 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 24.3 width-depth ratio 3.4 velocity (ft/s) B4c 12.3 discharge rate (cfs) 0.97 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 02-104-R-2017 50% riffle 30% pool 10% run 10% glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 25% 90% 80% 20% 70% 60% 15% 50% 40% 10% 30%

percent finer than finer percent 20% 5% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.3 silt/clay 20% D35 1 dispersion 40.7 sand 24% D50 4.7 skewness -0.35 gravel 49% D65 11 cobble 7% D84 26 boulder 0% D95 73 Cross Section- 02-106-R-2017, Riffle, Station 2+70 96 95 94 93

Elevation 92 91 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Width Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 20.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 24.0 W flood prone area (ft) 0.038 Manning's roughness 22.0 width (ft) 1.1 entrenchment ratio 0.9 mean depth (ft) 3.0 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.4 max depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height ratio 1.5 22.9 wetted parimeter (ft) 0.9 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 23.4 width-depth ratio 3.5 velocity (ft/s) F4 73.1 discharge rate (cfs) 0.66 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 02-106-R-2017 40% Riffle 20% Run 30% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder

100% 35% weighted percent of particles rangein 90% 30% 80% 70% 25% 60% 20% 50% 40% 15% 30% 10%

percent finer than finer percent 20% 5% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 2.1 silt/clay 29% D35 1.2 dispersion 139.1 sand 11% D50 17 skewness -0.53 gravel 42% D65 32 cobble 18% D84 68 boulder 0% D95 97 Cross Section- 02-107-R-2017, Riffle, Station 0+21 95.5 95 94.5 94 93.5 93 92.5

Elevation 92 91.5 91 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 5.1 x-section area (ft.sq.) 5.9 W flood prone area (ft) 0.026 Manning's roughness 6.1 width (ft) 1.0 entrenchment ratio 0.8 mean depth (ft) 3.2 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.0 max depth (ft) 3.1 low bank height ratio 1.5 7.0 wetted parimeter (ft) 0.7 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 7.5 width-depth ratio 6.5 velocity (ft/s) G4/6 33.0 discharge rate (cfs) 1.35 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 02-107-R-2017 40% Riffle 30% Run 20% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 35% 90% 30% 80% 70% 25% 60% 20% 50% 40% 15% 30% 10% 20% percent finer than finer percent 5% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.0 silt/clay 32% D35 0.081 dispersion 16.9 sand 21% D50 0.84 skewness 0.06 gravel 47% D65 9.2 cobble 0% D84 17 boulder 0% D95 41 Cross Section- 02-121-F-2017, Riffle, Station 1+70 96

95

94

93

Elevation 92

91 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 18.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 18.9 W flood prone area (ft) 0.036 Manning's roughness 17.6 width (ft) 1.1 entrenchment ratio 1.0 mean depth (ft) 3.5 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.7 max depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height ratio 1.0 18.9 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.0 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 16.9 width-depth ratio 4.3 velocity (ft/s) F4 78.2 discharge rate (cfs) 0.77 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 02-121-F-2017 40% Riffle 30% Run 20% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 18% 90% 16% 80% 14% 70% 12% 60% 10% 50% 8% 40% 30% 6%

20% 4% percent finer than finer percent 10% 2% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 1.1 mean 8.1 silt/clay 5% bedrock 3% D35 7.2 dispersion 8.8 sand 22% D50 15 skewness -0.21 gravel 54% D65 28 cobble 15% D84 59 boulder 0% D95 100 Cross Section- 02-123-F-2017, Riffle, Station 1+34 96 95 94 93 92

91 Elevation 90 89 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 13.1 x-section area (ft.sq.) 17.8 W flood prone area (ft) 0.031 Manning's roughness 14.8 width (ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio 0.9 mean depth (ft) 2.8 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.4 max depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height ratio 1.3 15.2 wetted parimeter (ft) 0.9 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 16.7 width-depth ratio 5.4 velocity (ft/s) F4 70.3 discharge rate (cfs) 1.02 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 02-123-F-2017 40% Riffle 20% Run 40% Pool weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 20% 90% 18% 80% 16% 70% 14% 60% 12% 50% 10% 40% 8% 30% 6%

20% 4% percent finer than finer percent 10% 2% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.5 silt/clay 19% D35 1.3 dispersion 42.3 sand 22% D50 4.8 skewness -0.31 gravel 49% D65 11 cobble 8% D84 34 boulder 2% D95 110 Cross Section- 02-201-R-2017, Riffle, Station 3+80 98 97 96 95 94 93

Elevation 92 91 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 80.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 167.0 W flood prone area (ft) 0.029 Manning's roughness 35.1 width (ft) 4.8 entrenchment ratio 2.3 mean depth (ft) 4.3 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 3.2 max depth (ft) 1.3 low bank height ratio 1.1 37.8 wetted parimeter (ft) 2.1 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 15.2 width-depth ratio 4.4 velocity (ft/s) C4 352.2 discharge rate (cfs) 0.52 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 02-201-R-2017 20% Riffle 30% Run 40% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 35% 90% 30% 80% 70% 25% 60% 20% 50% 40% 15% 30% 10% 20% percent finer than finer percent 5% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.6 silt/clay 29% D35 0.5 dispersion 45.9 sand 15% D50 5.2 skewness -0.31 gravel 50% D65 17 cobble 6% D84 41 boulder 0% D95 76 Cross Section- 02-202-R-2017, Riffle, Station 0+91 97 96 95 94 93

92 Elevation 91 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 74.2 x-section area (ft.sq.) 160.0 W flood prone area (ft) 0.032 Manning's roughness 33.0 width (ft) 4.8 entrenchment ratio 2.2 mean depth (ft) 4.2 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 2.8 max depth (ft) 1.5 low bank height ratio 1.1 34.7 wetted parimeter (ft) 2.1 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 14.7 width-depth ratio 5.0 velocity (ft/s) C4 367.1 discharge rate (cfs) 0.60 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 02-202-R-2017 20% Riffle 30% Run 40% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 30% 90% 80% 25% 70% 20% 60% 50% 15% 40% 30% 10% 20%

percent finer than finer percent 5% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.8 silt/clay 28% D35 0.5 dispersion 91.2 sand 19% D50 11 skewness -0.45 gravel 39% D65 28 cobble 14% D84 54 boulder 0% D95 110 Cross Section- 02-221-F-2017, Riffle, Station 0+45 97 96 95 94 93

92 Elevation 91 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Width Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 29.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 28.9 W flood prone area (ft) 0.031 Manning's roughness 28.7 width (ft) 1.0 entrenchment ratio 1.0 mean depth (ft) 4.6 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.5 max depth (ft) 3.0 low bank height ratio 1.7 29.4 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.0 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 28.0 width-depth ratio 5.1 velocity (ft/s) F4 148.4 discharge rate (cfs) 0.89 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 02-221-F-2017 50% Riffle 20% Run 20% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 14% 90% 12% 80% 70% 10% 60% 8% 50% 40% 6% 30% 4% 20% percent finer than finer percent 2% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 1 mean 6.1 silt/clay 2% D35 5.4 dispersion 6.9 sand 21% D50 10 skewness -0.17 gravel 70% D65 19 cobble 6% D84 37 boulder 1% D95 130 Cross Section- 02-301-F-2017, Riffle, Station 2+35 98

96

94

92

Elevation 90

88 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 114.0 x-section area (ft.sq.) 163.0 W flood prone area (ft) 0.033 Manning's roughness 37.6 width (ft) 4.3 entrenchment ratio 3.0 mean depth (ft) 5.1 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 4.4 max depth (ft) 1.2 low bank height ratio 1.0 40.6 wetted parimeter (ft) 2.8 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 12.4 width-depth ratio 4.0 velocity (ft/s) C4 457.6 discharge rate (cfs) 0.42 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 02-301-F-2017 40% RIffle 10% Run 20% Pool 30% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 14% 90% 12% 80% 70% 10% 60% 8% 50% 40% 6% 30% 4% 20% percent finer than finer percent 2% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 1.1 mean 8.8 silt/clay 8% D35 12 dispersion 12.8 sand 12% D50 25 skewness -0.34 gravel 60% D65 39 cobble 14% D84 71 boulder 6% D95 300 Cross Section- 03-102-R-2017, Riffle, Station 1+54 97 96 95 94 93

92 Elevation 91 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 40.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 27.3 W flood prone area (ft) 0.034 Manning's roughness 25.8 width (ft) 1.1 entrenchment ratio 1.6 mean depth (ft) 4.9 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 2.5 max depth (ft) 2.0 low bank height ratio 1.1 28.3 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.4 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 16.5 width-depth ratio 4.1 velocity (ft/s) F4/6 166.1 discharge rate (cfs) 0.61 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 03-102-R-2017 30% Riffle 20% Run 50% Pool weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 50% 90% 45% 80% 40% 70% 35% 60% 30% 50% 25% 40% 20% 30% 15%

20% 10% percent finer than finer percent 10% 5% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.9 silt/clay 44% D35 0.062 dispersion 36.1 sand 12% D50 1.1 skewness 0.14 gravel 29% D65 23 cobble 14% D84 60 boulder 1% D95 110 Cross Section- 03-103-R-2017, Riffle, Station 0+60 97 96 95 94 93

92 Elevation 91 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 33.0 x-section area (ft.sq.) 25.9 W flood prone area (ft) 0.035 Manning's roughness 25.4 width (ft) 1.0 entrenchment ratio 1.3 mean depth (ft) 4.0 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.6 max depth (ft) 2.5 low bank height ratio 1.2 26.5 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.2 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 19.6 width-depth ratio 4.6 velocity (ft/s) F4/5 152.0 discharge rate (cfs) 0.73 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 03-103-R-20017 40% Riffle 30% Run 20% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 25% 90% 80% 20% 70% 60% 15% 50% 40% 10% 30%

20% 5% percent finer than finer percent 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.9 silt/clay 20% D35 0.63 dispersion 99.1 sand 25% D50 12 skewness -0.47 gravel 44% D65 27 cobble 10% D84 56 boulder 1% D95 110 Cross Section- 03-104-R-2017, Riffle, Station 1+49 96 95 94 93 92 Elevation 91 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 32.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) 24.6 W flood prone area (ft) 0.031 Manning's roughness 24.1 width (ft) 1.0 entrenchment ratio 1.4 mean depth (ft) 3.7 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.9 max depth (ft) 2.0 low bank height ratio 1.4 25.0 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.3 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 17.8 width-depth ratio 5.2 velocity (ft/s) F4/5 170.1 discharge rate (cfs) 0.80 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 03-104-R-2017 30% Riffle 20% Run 40% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 20% 90% 18% 80% 16% 70% 14% 60% 12% 50% 10% 40% 8% 30% 6%

20% 4% percent finer than finer percent 10% 2% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.6 silt/clay 16% D35 0.31 dispersion 31.2 sand 44% D50 0.84 skewness 0.17 gravel 32% D65 16 cobble 8% D84 41 boulder 0% D95 110 Cross Section- 03-108-R-2017, Riffle, Station 1+40 95.5 95 94.5 94

93.5 Elevation 93 92.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 2.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 8.8 W flood prone area (ft) 0.016 Manning's roughness 5.6 width (ft) 1.6 entrenchment ratio 0.5 mean depth (ft) 2.3 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 0.8 max depth (ft) 2.9 low bank height ratio 1.1 6.0 wetted parimeter (ft) 0.5 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 11.1 width-depth ratio 5.4 velocity (ft/s) B5c 15.5 discharge rate (cfs) 1.39 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 03-108-R-2017 20% Riffle 80% Run weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 30% 90% 80% 25% 70% 20% 60% 50% 15% 40% 30% 10% 20% percent finer than finer percent 5% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.069 mean 0.3 silt/clay 12% D35 0.12 dispersion 5.0 sand 75% D50 0.22 skewness 0.14 gravel 13% D65 0.37 cobble 0% D84 1.5 boulder 0% D95 11 Cross Section- 03-113-R-2017, Riffle, Station 1+93 97 96 95 94 93 92

Elevation 91 90 89 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 5.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 10.7 W flood prone area (ft) 0.028 Manning's roughness 7.4 width (ft) 1.4 entrenchment ratio 0.8 mean depth (ft) 4.8 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.1 max depth (ft) 4.2 low bank height ratio 1.1 8.7 wetted parimeter (ft) 0.7 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 9.5 width-depth ratio 6.4 velocity (ft/s) G6 36.9 discharge rate (cfs) 1.38 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 03-113-R-2017 50% Riffle 40% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 60% 90% 80% 50% 70% 40% 60% 50% 30% 40% 30% 20% 20%

percent finer than finer percent 10% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.2 silt/clay 50% D35 0.062 dispersion 177.9 sand 24% D50 0.062 skewness 0.80 gravel 20% D65 1.1 cobble 6% D84 22 boulder 0% D95 72 Cross Section- 03-123-F-2017, Riffle, Station 1+10 98 97 96 95 94 93

Elevation 92 91 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 21.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 38.6 W flood prone area (ft) 0.029 Manning's roughness 22.1 width (ft) 1.7 entrenchment ratio 1.0 mean depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.5 max depth (ft) 1.1 low bank height ratio 1.2 23.2 wetted parimeter (ft) 0.9 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 22.5 width-depth ratio 9.4 velocity (ft/s) B1 204.1 discharge rate (cfs) 1.71 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 03-123-F-2017 50% Riffle 20% Run 20% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 16% 90% 14% 80% 12% 70% 60% 10% 50% 8% 40% 6% 30% 4%

20% percent finer than finer percent 10% 2% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.073 mean 1.4 silt/clay 9% bedrock 38% D35 2 dispersion 35.0 sand 12% D50 4.7 skewness -0.33 gravel 37% D65 9.3 cobble 2% D84 26 boulder 1% D95 77 Cross Section- 03-124-F-2017, Riffle, Station 2+17 98

97

96

95

Elevation 94

93 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 6.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 15.5 W flood prone area (ft) 0.024 Manning's roughness 7.8 width (ft) 2.0 entrenchment ratio 0.9 mean depth (ft) 3.1 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.3 max depth (ft) 2.3 low bank height ratio 1.1 9.1 wetted parimeter (ft) 0.7 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 9.0 width-depth ratio 7.0 velocity (ft/s) B5/4c 46.8 discharge rate (cfs) 1.44 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 03-124-F-2017 30% Riffle 20% Run 40% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 30% 90% 80% 25% 70% 20% 60% 50% 15% 40% 30% 10% 20% percent finer than finer percent 5% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 0.9 silt/clay 20% D35 0.09 dispersion 44.5 sand 51% D50 0.15 skewness 0.51 gravel 28% D65 0.63 cobble 1% D84 13 boulder 0% D95 25 Cross Section- 03-221-F-2017, Run, Station 1+17 96 95 94 93 92 91

Elevation 90 89 88 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 26.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 25.0 W flood prone area (ft) 0.015 Manning's roughness 19.6 width (ft) 1.3 entrenchment ratio 1.3 mean depth (ft) 6.0 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 2.3 max depth (ft) 2.6 low bank height ratio 1.0 20.6 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.3 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 14.5 width-depth ratio 8.1 velocity (ft/s) F5/6 213.8 discharge rate (cfs) 1.26 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 03-221-F-2017 10% Riffle 60% Run 30% Pool weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 45% 90% 40% 80% 35% 70% 30% 60% 25% 50% 20% 40% 30% 15%

20% 10% percent finer than finer percent 10% 5% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 0.2 silt/clay 39% D35 0.062 dispersion 3.7 sand 51% D50 0.17 skewness 0.11 gravel 10% D65 0.27 cobble 0% D84 0.79 boulder 0% D95 19 Cross Section- 03-301-R-2017, Run, Station 2+59 100 98 96 94

92 Elevation 90 88 0 20 40 60 80 100 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 170.5 x-section area (ft.sq.) 285.0 W flood prone area (ft) 0.033 Manning's roughness 54.4 width (ft) 5.2 entrenchment ratio 3.1 mean depth (ft) 5.0 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 4.5 max depth (ft) 1.1 low bank height ratio 2.0 58.0 wetted parimeter (ft) 2.9 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 17.4 width-depth ratio 5.5 velocity (ft/s) C4 942.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.57 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 03-301-R-2017 30% Riffle 20% Run 30% Pool 20% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 16% 90% 14% 80% 12% 70% 60% 10% 50% 8% 40% 6% 30% 4%

20% percent finer than finer percent 10% 2% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.16 mean 3.4 silt/clay 14% D35 1.3 dispersion 64.3 sand 25% D50 20 skewness -0.47 gravel 41% D65 32 cobble 18% D84 73 boulder 2% D95 140 Cross Section- 03-321-F-2017, Riffle, Station 0+67 96

94

92

90

Elevation 88

86 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 197.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 259.5 W flood prone area (ft) 0.032 Manning's roughness 61.2 width (ft) 4.2 entrenchment ratio 3.2 mean depth (ft) 6.7 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 4.0 max depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height ratio 1.1 65.1 wetted parimeter (ft) 3.0 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 18.9 width-depth ratio 3.3 velocity (ft/s) C4 662.2 discharge rate (cfs) 0.34 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 03-321-F-2017 20% Riffle 20% Run 50% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 30% 90% 80% 25% 70% 20% 60% 50% 15% 40% 30% 10%

percent finer than finer percent 20% 5% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 2.0 silt/clay 26% D35 1.3 dispersion 162.9 sand 15% D50 20 skewness -0.58 gravel 43% D65 32 cobble 16% D84 64 boulder 0% D95 150 Cross Section- 05-103-R-2017, Riffle, Station 0+63 97 96 95 94 93

92 Elevation 91 90 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 13.2 x-section area (ft.sq.) 13.4 W flood prone area (ft) 0.042 Manning's roughness 9.6 width (ft) 1.4 entrenchment ratio 1.4 mean depth (ft) 4.1 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.8 max depth (ft) 2.3 low bank height ratio 1.1 11.8 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.1 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 6.9 width-depth ratio 5.5 velocity (ft/s) G4/5 72.1 discharge rate (cfs) 0.91 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 05-103-R-2017 40% Riffle 40% Run 20% Pool weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 14% 90% 12% 80% 70% 10% 60% 8% 50% 40% 6% 30% 4% 20% percent finer than finer percent 2% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.17 mean 4.1 silt/clay 12% D35 1.2 dispersion 31.3 sand 32% D50 8.7 skewness -0.19 gravel 33% D65 35 cobble 22% D84 100 boulder 1% D95 170 Cross Section- 05-105-R-2017, Run, Station 2+31 98 97 96 95 94 93 92

Elevation 91 90 89 0 20 40 60 80 100 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 43.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 47.8 W flood prone area (ft) 0.012 Manning's roughness 38.1 width (ft) 1.3 entrenchment ratio 1.1 mean depth (ft) 4.0 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.9 max depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height ratio 1.2 38.4 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.1 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 33.5 width-depth ratio 1.9 velocity (ft/s) F6 83.3 discharge rate (cfs) 0.32 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 05-105-R-2017 20% Run 80% Pool weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 80% 90% 70% 80% 60% 70% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20%

20% percent finer than finer percent 10% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 0.1 silt/clay 73% D35 0.062 dispersion 2.0 sand 19% D50 0.062 skewness 0.35 gravel 8% D65 0.062 cobble 0% D84 0.19 boulder 0% D95 8 Cross Section- 05-106-R-2017, Riffle, Station 0+60 99 98 97 96 95

94 Elevation 93 92 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 34.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 51.1 W flood prone area (ft) 0.039 Manning's roughness 31.7 width (ft) 1.6 entrenchment ratio 1.1 mean depth (ft) 4.5 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.5 max depth (ft) 3.0 low bank height ratio 1.3 32.5 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.1 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 28.8 width-depth ratio 4.2 velocity (ft/s) F4 147.7 discharge rate (cfs) 0.72 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 05-106-R-2017 60% Riffle 10% Run 20% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 18% 90% 16% 80% 14% 70% 12% 60% 10% 50% 8% 40% 30% 6%

20% 4% percent finer than finer percent 10% 2% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.42 mean 5.5 silt/clay 10% D35 10 dispersion 27.8 sand 14% D50 22 skewness -0.40 gravel 54% D65 31 cobble 22% D84 73 boulder 0% D95 100 Cross Section- 05-108-R-2017, Riffle, Station 1+14 99 98 97 96 95 94

Elevation 93 92 91 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 31.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 41.4 W flood prone area (ft) 0.042 Manning's roughness 32.6 width (ft) 1.3 entrenchment ratio 1.0 mean depth (ft) 4.0 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.5 max depth (ft) 2.7 low bank height ratio 1.1 33.1 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.0 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 33.4 width-depth ratio 2.9 velocity (ft/s) F4/5 92.4 discharge rate (cfs) 0.52 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 05-108-R-2017 20% Riffle 50% Pool 30% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 40% 90% 35% 80% 30% 70% 60% 25% 50% 20% 40% 15% 30% 10%

20% percent finer than finer percent 10% 5% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.28 mean 4.9 silt/clay 9% D35 0.41 dispersion 33.6 sand 43% D50 1.4 skewness 0.35 gravel 24% D65 40 cobble 23% D84 87 boulder 1% D95 150 Cross Section- 05-111-R-2017, Riffle, Station 0+70 98

97

96

95

Elevation 94

93 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 18.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 78.7 W flood prone area (ft) 0.035 Manning's roughness 14.8 width (ft) 5.3 entrenchment ratio 1.3 mean depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 2.1 max depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio 1.0 15.9 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.2 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 11.7 width-depth ratio 6.6 velocity (ft/s) C4/5 124.3 discharge rate (cfs) 1.07 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 05-111-R-2017 50% Riffle 10% Run 30% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 12% 90% 80% 10% 70% 8% 60% 50% 6% 40% 30% 4% 20% percent finer than finer percent 2% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.23 mean 3.7 silt/clay 3% D35 1.4 dispersion 24.2 sand 34% D50 9.7 skewness -0.27 gravel 48% D65 23 cobble 12% D84 61 boulder 3% D95 170 Cross Section- 05-121-F-2017, Riffle, Station 0+59 98 97 96 95 94 93

Elevation 92 91 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 38.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 46.6 W flood prone area (ft) 0.039 Manning's roughness 43.2 width (ft) 1.1 entrenchment ratio 0.9 mean depth (ft) 5.5 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.8 max depth (ft) 3.2 low bank height ratio 1.4 45.0 wetted parimeter (ft) 0.9 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 48.0 width-depth ratio 1.9 velocity (ft/s) F4 72.1 discharge rate (cfs) 0.35 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 05-121-F-2017 40% Riffle 40% Pool 20% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 14% 90% 12% 80% 70% 10% 60% 8% 50% 40% 6% 30% 4% 20% percent finer than finer percent 2% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.1 mean 2.7 silt/clay 11% D35 1.6 dispersion 116.6 sand 25% D50 23 skewness -0.55 gravel 43% D65 39 cobble 21% D84 73 boulder 0% D95 110 Cross Section- 05-122-F-2017, Riffle, Station 2+12 98 97 96 95 94 93

Elevation 92 91 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 55.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 51.7 W flood prone area (ft) 0.033 Manning's roughness 38.2 width (ft) 1.4 entrenchment ratio 1.4 mean depth (ft) 5.4 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 2.5 max depth (ft) 2.2 low bank height ratio 1.4 40.8 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.4 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 26.4 width-depth ratio 4.0 velocity (ft/s) F4/5 222.6 discharge rate (cfs) 0.61 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 05-122-F-2017 40% Riffle 10% Run 40% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 25% 90% 80% 20% 70% 60% 15% 50% 40% 10% 30%

20% 5% percent finer than finer percent 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.7 silt/clay 22% D35 0.13 dispersion 44.1 sand 34% D50 0.57 skewness 0.28 gravel 34% D65 12 cobble 7% D84 45 boulder 3% D95 150 Cross Section- 05-201-F-2017, Riffle, Station 3+80 97 96 95 94 93

92 Elevation 91 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 28.2 x-section area (ft.sq.) 35.3 W flood prone area (ft) 0.034 Manning's roughness 19.0 width (ft) 1.9 entrenchment ratio 1.5 mean depth (ft) 4.7 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 1.9 max depth (ft) 2.4 low bank height ratio 1.3 20.1 wetted parimeter (ft) 1.4 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 12.8 width-depth ratio 4.6 velocity (ft/s) B4c 128.9 discharge rate (cfs) 0.68 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 05-201-F-2017 30% Riffle 40% Pool 30% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 30% 90% 80% 25% 70% 20% 60% 50% 15% 40% 30% 10% 20% percent finer than finer percent 5% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.9 silt/clay 26% D35 0.4 dispersion 68.0 sand 16% D50 8 skewness -0.37 gravel 47% D65 27 cobble 11% D84 56 boulder 0% D95 98 Cross Section 05-301-R-2017, Riffle, Station 2+34 102 100 98 96 94

92 Elevation 90 88 0 20 40 60 80 100 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 212.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 359.9 W flood prone area (ft) 0.030 Manning's roughness 74.1 width (ft) 4.9 entrenchment ratio 2.9 mean depth (ft) 5.1 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 5.2 max depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio 1.2 78.2 wetted parimeter (ft) 2.7 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 25.8 width-depth ratio 6.9 velocity (ft/s) C4 1479.4 discharge rate (cfs) 0.74 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 05-301-R-2017 40% Riffle 10% Run 50% Pool weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 20% 90% 18% 80% 16% 70% 14% 60% 12% 50% 10% 40% 8% 30% 6%

20% 4% percent finer than finer percent 10% 2% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 1.8 silt/clay 19% D35 1.4 dispersion 83.2 sand 21% D50 10 skewness -0.44 gravel 47% D65 25 cobble 11% D84 52 boulder 2% D95 90 Cross Section- 05-321-F-2017, Run, Station 0+00 102 100 98 96 94

92 Elevation 90 88 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Width

Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Flow Resistance 177.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 248.8 W flood prone area (ft) 0.021 Manning's roughness 69.5 width (ft) 3.6 entrenchment ratio 2.6 mean depth (ft) 7.5 low bank height (ft) Sinuosity 5.7 max depth (ft) 1.3 low bank height ratio 1.1 75.6 wetted parimeter (ft) 2.3 hyd radi (ft) Bankfull Flow Channel Type 27.3 width-depth ratio 1.7 velocity (ft/s) C4/5c- 294.3 discharge rate (cfs) 0.19 Froude number

Weighted pebble count by bed features 05-321-F-2017 10% Run 80% Pool 10% Glide weighted percent d50 vert silt/clay sand gravel cobble

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder weighted percent of particles rangein 100% 30% 90% 80% 25% 70% 20% 60% 50% 15% 40% 30% 10% 20% percent finer than finer percent 5% 10% 0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Size (mm) Size Distribution Type D16 0.062 mean 0.8 silt/clay 27% bedrock 4% D35 0.17 dispersion 12.8 sand 38% D50 0.91 skewness -0.04 gravel 30% D65 1.8 cobble 0% D84 10 boulder 1% D95 22 Appendix F: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, Lower Brighton Dam Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment 2017 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

The biological monitoring program for the Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam subwatersheds includes chemical, physical, and biological assessments conducted throughout the selected PSUs. The sampling methods used are compatible with the Design of the Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program for Howard County Maryland (Tetra Tech, 2001) and the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Howard County Department of Public Works (Tetra Tech, 2001). A summary of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures and results are presented in this Appendix. A quality assurance and quality control analysis was completed for the assessment work conducted in the Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, and Lower Brighton Dam subwatersheds following the methods described by Hill et al. (2005). This analysis included performance characteristics of precision, accuracy, bias and completeness. Performance measures include: • Precision (consistency) of field sampling and overall site assessments using intra-team site duplication - median relative percent difference (mRPD) - coefficient of variability (CV) - 90% confidence interval (CI) • Bias of sample sorting and subsampling - percent sorting efficiency (PSE) • Accuracy of data entry - number of errors/corrective actions • Completeness - number of valid data points obtained as a proportion of those planned (QAPP, 2001). Data that does not meet performance or acceptable criteria are re-evaluated to correct any problems or investigated further to determine the cause of any discrepancies.

Field Sampling All field crew members collecting biological samples were recently trained in MBSS Spring Sampling protocols and certified in benthic macroinvertebrate sample collection procedures by MBSS. All subjective scoring was completed with the input of all team members at the sampling site to reduce individual sampler bias. Field water quality measurements were collected in situ at all monitoring sites including the duplicate sites, according to methods in the County QAPP. All in situ parameters were measured with a YSI Pro Plus series multiprobe, except turbidity which was measured using a Hach 2100 Turbidimeter. Water quality equipment was regularly inspected, maintained and calibrated to ensure proper usage and accuracy of the readings. Calibration logs were kept by field crew leaders and checked by the project manager regularly. Sample buckets contained both internal and external labels. All chain-of-custody procedures were followed for transfer of the samples between the field and the identification lab. Replicate (duplicate) samples were collected at ten percent of the sites (one site for each PSU, three total for the 2017 sampling year). These QC samples were collected to determine the consistency and precision of the sampling procedures and the intra-team adherence to those protocols. QC sites were field-selected rather than randomly selected to ensure that the QC sites maintained similar habitat conditions to the original site. Data collected from duplicate sites included water quality, benthic macroinvertebrate samples, and completion of the RBP habitat assessment. Photographs were also taken at duplicate sites.

Appendix F Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, Lower Brighton Dam Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment 2017 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Precision Measures of precision calculated for the consistency of field sampling using intra-team site duplication were:

• Median relative percent difference (mRPD) and relative percent difference (RPD) • Coefficient of variability (CV) • 90% confidence interval (CI)

Acceptable measurement quality objectives (MQO) are listed in the table below. DNR’s MBSS protocols were used for the collection and analysis of macroinvertebrate data. In 2005, DNR updated their Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI; Southerland et al., 2005). These new metrics were used to calculate the BIBI presented in this report.

Measurement Quality Objectives (QAPP, 2001)

Metric or Index Precision Accuracy Completeness (%) GPS ± 25m 100 Dissolved Oxygen RPD ≤ 20% ± 0.2 mg/L ≥ 85 pH RPD ≤ 20% ± 0.2 units ≥ 85 Temperature RPD ≤ 20% ± 0.15 ˚C ≥ 85 Conductivity RPD ≤ 20% ± 1% of value ≥ 85 RBP Physical Habitat Assessment RPD ≤ 20% NA 100 Macroinvertebrate taxa 100 Metric Scores RPD ≤ 5% Bioassessment Scores RPD ≤ 5% Sorting Efficiency SE ≥ 90% GPS All GPS points were collected with a Trimble ProXT GPS unit capable of accuracy of within 2 meters. Multiple readings (approximately 60) were recorded at the reach midpoint and averaged to obtain the location of the final point. Thus, the accuracy requirement of ± 25 meters was met. A GPS point was collected at all 30 sites, therefore the data meets the 100 percent MQO for completeness. Water Quality The following table shows the results of the water quality MQO analysis. The field equipment used, with correct maintenance and calibration, are capable of the required accuracy. Since the true accuracy of field measured water quality is not known with confidence, the measure of precision is used instead. Water quality data for all parameters were collected at all 30 sites, therefore the data meets the >85 percent MQO for completeness. One sample pair (02-121-F- 2017) had a water quality measurement that exceeded the MQO of ≤20% for turbidity. The calculated RPD for this sample pair was 34.05, above the stated MQO. However, the high RPD value is an artifact of comparing two low values. This automatically results in an inflated RPD value despite a difference of 0.87 NTU between the samples. All other water quality parameters were within the acceptable ranges for precision.

Appendix F Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, Lower Brighton Dam Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment 2017 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Measurement Quality Objectives Results – Water Quality. Bold records indicate values exceeding stated MQOs. Dissolved Water Turbidity Conductivity Oxygen pH Temperature (ntu) (µS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) 02-121-F-2017 11.24 7.33 12.10 2.1 235.1 02-121-F-2017 QC 10.89 7.01 13.90 3.0 237.1 Absolute Difference 0.35 0.32 1.80 0.87 2.00 RPD 3.16 4.46 13.85 34.05 0.85 SD 0.25 0.23 1.27 0.62 1.41 03-301-R-2017 10.39 7.12 12.40 4.4 241.9 03-301-R-2017 QC 10.85 6.98 12.80 5.2 242.3 Absolute Difference 0.46 0.14 0.40 0.87 0.40 RPD 4.33 1.99 3.17 18.14 0.17 SD 0.33 0.10 0.28 0.62 0.28 05-122-F-2017 12.14 8.15 3.90 1.4 253.1 05-122-F-2017 QC 12.26 7.97 3.90 1.2 255.3 Absolute Difference 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.14 2.20 RPD 0.98 2.23 0.00 10.69 0.87 SD 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.10 1.56 Median RPD 3.16 2.23 3.17 18.14 0.85

Habitat Assessment The following table provides the result of the MQO analysis for the habitat assessment. The RPD was <10 percent for all QC sites, therefore, all data meets the MQO of ≤20 percent. Measurement Quality Objectives Results – Habitat Assessment (RBP) RBP RBP Percent Total Narrative Rating Comparability Score 02-121-F-2017 134 67 Partially Supporting 02-121-F-2017 QC 130 65 Partially Supporting Absolute Difference 4.00 2.00 RPD 3.03 3.03 SD 2.83 1.41 03-301-R-2017 130 65 Partially Supporting 03-301-R-2017 QC 134 67 Partially Supporting Absolute Difference 4.00 2.00 RPD 3.03 3.03 SD 2.83 1.41 05-122-F-2017 114 57 Not Supporting 05-122-F-2017 QC 124 62 Partially Supporting Absolute Difference 10.00 5.00 RPD 8.40 8.40 SD 7.07 3.54 Median RPD 3.03 3.03

Appendix F Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, Lower Brighton Dam Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment 2017 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Biological Assessment The following three tables include the results of the QC analysis for the biological metrics and BIBI scores. One metric score and BIBI scores fell outside the acceptable range for precision (shown in bold). In each case, the difference was only one scoring class (i.e, 1, 3, or 5), which resulted in a large RPD. In fact, even the smallest incremental difference in metric scores would result in an exceedance of the RPD MQO. Therefore, additional measures of precision were calculated among the combined QC data set to evaluate the significance of the differences in individual metric values and scores, as well as in the overall BIBI score. Measurement Quality Objectives Results – Biological Sampling, Sample Pair RPD for Metric and IBI Scores Percent Total EPT Ephem Percent Percent Intolerant BIBI Taxa Taxa Taxa Chironomidae Clinger Urban Score Score Score Score Score Score 02-121-F-2017 4.33 5 5 1 5 5 5 02-121-F-2017 QC 4.33 5 5 3 5 5 3 03-301-R-2017 3.33 5 3 3 3 3 3 03-301-R-2017 QC 4.00 5 5 5 3 3 3 05-122-F-2017 3.33 3 3 5 3 3 3 05-122-F-2017 QC 3.67 5 3 5 3 3 3 Median RPD 9.5 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

The BIBI is not scored on a continuous scale, but rather each metric is scored on an incremental scale (assigned a value of 1, 3 or 5), and these values are averaged to yield the final BIBI score. Since the piedmont BIBI score is an average of six metric scores, the BIBI scores shift by at least 0.3 or 0.4 with a difference in only metric (e.g., 2.0, 2.3, 2.7, 3.0). Additionally, an individual metric value may differ by only one taxa or one percent for a sample pair, but if it falls on either side of a scoring threshold (i.e, 1, 3, 5), the resulting difference in metric scores will differ by as much as 50 to 100% for RPD. For these reasons, the overall BIBI scores and Ephemeroptera Taxa score mRPDs did not meet the MQOs. Due to the overall BIBI score consisting of scaled incremental metrics, the RPD does not reflect the precision well. Additional measures of precision (CV, CI, and mRPD) for the combined sample pair results indicate far better precision than does RPD. None of the measures calculated deviated significantly from normal, acceptable levels of precision between duplicate sample pairs observed in similar studies (Hill et. al, 2005; Gallardo et. al, 2006). All phases of the biological assessment were conducted for every site; therefore the 100 percent completeness MQO is met.

Appendix F Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, Lower Brighton Dam Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment 2017 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Measurement Quality Objectives Results – Biological Sampling, Combined Precision Measures for Metric Values Percent Total EPT Ephem Intolerant Percent Percent Taxa Taxa Taxa Urban Chironomidae Clingers 02-121-F-2017 34 13 1 62.0 17.6 77.8 02-121-F-2017 QC 29 12 2 52.9 21.6 71.6 03-301-R-2017 31 8 3 18.3 33.9 43.5 03-301-R-2017 QC 36 11 5 16.5 40.9 51.3 05-122-F-2017 23 10 7 19.3 57.8 53.2 05-122-F-2017 QC 32 9 5 27.1 46.7 32.7 CV 14.7 17.8 58.1 60.5 41.9 30.8 CI 7.4 3.1 3.7 32.4 25.0 27.8 mRPD 15.9 10.5 0.0 10.0 20.3 16.5

Measurement Quality Objectives Results – Biological Sampling, Combined Precision Measures for Metric and IBI Scores Percent Total EPT Ephem Intolerant Percent Percent Taxa Taxa Taxa Urban Chironomidae Clingers BIBI 02-121-F-2017 5 5 1 5 5 5 4.33 02-121-F-2017 QC 5 5 3 5 5 3 4.33 03-301-R-2017 5 3 3 3 3 3 3.33 03-301-R-2017 QC 5 5 5 3 3 3 4.00 05-122-F-2017 3 3 5 3 3 3 3.33 05-122-F-2017 QC 5 3 5 3 3 3 3.67 CV 17.5 27.4 44.5 28.2 28.2 24.5 12.0 CI 1.3 1.8 2.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 0.8 mRPD 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5

Laboratory Sorting and Subsampling Only one highly qualified sorter was used to sort the 33 countywide samples. After 10 samples were sorted, the laboratory QC officer randomly selected one sample to resort to check the sorting efficiency of the technician. The target sorting efficiency rate for this project was 90%. The sorting technician saved the sample debris that was originally sorted for each sample and stored it in a separate container for QC purposes. The QC officer resorted the sample portion that was originally sorted and removed, counted, and added any organisms originally missed to the sample vials for identification.

Three samples were checked by the QC officer for this project, and all samples passed the QC with an error rate of 7.8 percent, 4.4 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively. Collectively the samples had an average sorting efficiency of 95.2%, which exceeds the sorting efficiency target of 90%.

Appendix F Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, Lower Brighton Dam Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment 2017 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Taxonomic Identification and Enumeration Two samples (03-221-F-2017 and 02-123-F-2017) were randomly selected for QC identification and enumeration by an independent lab. Original identification was completed by Aquatic Resources Center1. Re-identification of the randomly selected sample was done by Ellen Friedman of Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Each sample was identified to the genus level where possible. Individuals that were not able to be identified to genus level were identified to the lowest possible level, usually family, but in some cases order or subphylum. For Chironomidae, individuals not identifiable to genus may have been identified to subfamily or tribe level. Precision Measures of precision were calculated for the identification consistency between the two randomly selected samples. These include percent difference in enumeration (PDE) and percent taxonomic disagreement (PTD). The PDE compares the final specimen counts between the two taxonomy labs, whereas PTD compares the number of agreements in final specimen identifications between the two taxonomic labs. While MBSS does not specify MQOs for these measures, performance characteristics were compared to recommended standards from Stribling et al. (2003), whereby the PDE for each sample should be equal to or less than 5%, and the PTD should be equal to or less than 15%. Results for the taxonomic comparison and resulting values for PDE and PTD are found in Table 1 and Table 2 for samples 03-221-F-2017 and 02-123-F-2017, respectively. Both PDE (1.82% and 1.96%) and PTD (5.56 and 12.00%) were below the threshold values for acceptance of 5% and 15%, respectively, indicating good overall taxonomic agreement. All disagreements were minor.

1 Address: 545 Cathy Jo Circle, Nashville, TN

Appendix F Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, Lower Brighton Dam Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment 2017 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Table 1. Taxonomic Identification and Enumeration Results for Sample 03-221-F-2017

Secondary Subphylum/Class Order Family Tribe Final ID Primary Taxonomist # of agreements Taxonomist Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius Oulimnius 1 1 Stenelmis Stenelmis 1 1 Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius 1 0 Orthocladinae 0 1 Orthocladius 0 1 Chironomini Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus 1 1 Hydrobaenus Hydrobaenus 7 7 Chironomini Microtendipes Microtendipes 2 2 Pentaneurini Nilotanypus Nilotanypus 1 1 Chironomini not identified Chironominae 1 3 Chironomini Polypedilum Polypedilum 20 20 Tanytarsini Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus 16 14 Tanytarsini Stempellinella Stempellinella 6 5 Tanytarsini Tanytarsus Tanytarsus 10 10 Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group 3 2 Trissopelopia 0 1 Empididae Hemerodromiini Hemerodromia Hemerodromia 1 1 Tipulidae Antocha Antocha 1 1 Hexatoma Hexatoma 1 1 Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus Ameletus 1 1 Ephemerellidae 0 2 Ephemerella Ephemerella 14 12 Eurylophella Eurylophella 1 1 Teloganopsis Teloganopsis 3 3 Heptageniidae not identified Heptageniidae 1 1 Plecoptera Nemouridae Paranemoura Paranemoura 1 0 Prostoia Prostoia 0 1 Perlodidae Isoperla Isoperla 1 1 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche 5 5 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae not identified Naididae 6 11 Tubificidae 0 1 Tubificida Naididae Chaetogaster Chaetogaster 2 0 Total 108 112 102 PDE 1.82 PTD 5.56

Appendix F Upper Brighton Dam, Cattail Creek, Lower Brighton Dam Howard County Biological Monitoring and Assessment 2017 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Table 2. Taxonomic Identification and Enumeration Results for Sample 02-123-R-2017

Subphylum/Class Order Family Tribe Final ID Primary Taxonomist Secondary Taxonomist # of agreements Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae 0 not identified Naididae 27 29 Tubificidae 0 3 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae 0 Oulimnius Oulimnius 2 1 Optioservus 0 1 Diptera Chironomidae 0 Corynoneura Corynoneura 2 1 0 Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius 1 0 Orthocladinae 0 2 0 Diplocladius Diplocladius 1 1 Tanytarsini Micropsectra Micropsectra 1 0 Tanytarsini not identified Tanytarsini 1 1 Chironomini 0 1 Polypedilum Polypedilum 9 8 0 Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus 1 1 Tanytarsini Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus 1 0 Tanytarsini Sublettea Sublettea 1 1 Tanytarsini Tanytarsus Tanytarsus 5 3 0 Thienemanniella Thienemanniella 1 2 0 Thienemannimyia group Thienemannimyia group 4 4 Trissopelopia 0 1 0 Tvetenia Tvetenia 3 2 Pentaneurini Zavrelimyia Zavrelimyia 1 0 Tipulidae 0 Tipula Tipula 1 0 Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae 0 Ephemerella Ephemerella 2 1 0 Eurylophella Eurylophella 10 16 Heptageniidae 0 Epeorus Epeorus 2 2 Leptophlebiidae 0 not identified Leptophlebiidae 1 1 Odonata Calopterygidae 0 Calopteryx Calopteryx 2 2 Plecoptera Nemouridae 0 Amphinemura Amphinemura 4 4 Leuctridae 0 7 not identified 0 not identified Plecoptera 7 0 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Stenophylacini Pycnopsyche Pycnopsyche 1 1 Philopotamidae 0 4 0 Dolophilodes Dolophilodes 5 0 Rhyacophilidae 0 Rhyacophila Rhyacophila 1 1 Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae 0 Caecidotea Caecidotea 1 1 Turbellaria not identified not identified 0 not identified Turbellaria 2 0 Dugesiidae 0 2 Total 100 104 88 PDE 1.96 PTD 12.00 Appendix F